Belz...
Fiend God
Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters
- Thread starter desertyeti
- Start date
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
Welcome to the forum, Mangler. Make us proud.
I'm neither of the above. Just really, really cynical.
Uh oh.
Sorry, lad. But I'm not going to do you any favours. Cynical, and all.
Yes, and SOMETHING is abducting people and cattle in the night.
SOMETHING has been filmed on occasion that ressembles a large flying saucer.
Three billion people, if not more, believe in God.
Zilch.
What you've mentioned here is NOT undeniable proof. It's weak evidence: folk tales, eyewitness testimony, and evidence that has been known to be 1) possible to fake and 2) actually faked numerous times (e.g. the videos and tracks). Now, some of those tracks and pictures/videos might actually be the real deal, but without actual, solid evidence, they are of the weakest order.
A shift in the burden of proof will not avail you. The sheer amount of ghost pictures doesn't make them real.
Or did I miss your point ? Were you beign sarcastic ? I don't know, anymore.
I'm neither of the above. Just really, really cynical.
Uh oh.
Sorry, lad. But I'm not going to do you any favours. Cynical, and all.
Yes, and SOMETHING is abducting people and cattle in the night.
SOMETHING has been filmed on occasion that ressembles a large flying saucer.
Three billion people, if not more, believe in God.
Zilch.
What you've mentioned here is NOT undeniable proof. It's weak evidence: folk tales, eyewitness testimony, and evidence that has been known to be 1) possible to fake and 2) actually faked numerous times (e.g. the videos and tracks). Now, some of those tracks and pictures/videos might actually be the real deal, but without actual, solid evidence, they are of the weakest order.
A shift in the burden of proof will not avail you. The sheer amount of ghost pictures doesn't make them real.
Or did I miss your point ? Were you beign sarcastic ? I don't know, anymore.
Belz...
Fiend God
Sweaty said:
History shows you won't. But hey, I'm a hopeless optimist:
Assuming the definition of "reliable" is "that can be verified, independently, by other people using a variety of techniques", which of course, rules out mere testimony, sightings, pictures and tracks, and assuming the definition of "evidence for X" is "an objective reason to believe in X", and assuming the definition of "objective" is "that is based purely on reasoning and not on emotional responses or beliefs", why hasn't there been "reliable" "evidence for" Bigfoot so far ?
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!.......
Damn. You're keeping an awful big tab on Kitakaze, here. What are you ? Obsessed ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Oh, no. Please, do answer. Was I wrong in #3216 ? Somehow you never answered that. Coming from you, that kind of disheartening.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
belz wrote:
But I can respond to that now....
You wrote:
Greg is not sure that Bigfoot evidence does not exist.
I'd say that your statement in #3216 is correct. What was the point of it?
I've been very busy.
But I can respond to that now....You wrote:
I think I understand what you're saying.
Greg is not sure that Bigfoot evidence does not exist.
I'd say that your statement in #3216 is correct. What was the point of it?
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
With respect to your "translation" of Greg's quote.......
I asked you before, belz......is there a difference in the meanings of the phrases "worthless evidence".....and "convincing evidence"?
I asked you before, belz......is there a difference in the meanings of the phrases "worthless evidence".....and "convincing evidence"?
RayG
Master Poster
Sweaty has gone beyond confusion, he works hard at playing dumb (but only when it suits him). He has trouble with the meaning of many words, probable and possible for example. Asking him to engage in meaningful, reasoned debate is an exercise in futility.
(Those links are for your benefit Sweaty)
Belz... said:
It's no use Belz, Sweaty has demonstrated time and again that he's not really interested in debate. He has Joyce, that's all he requires.
RayG
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
If anyone is wondering why I even bother continuing to address Sweaty I'd just like to share my thoughts on the matter. I think those such as William Parcher who deem that Sweaty is not even worth the effort or RayG who has simply placed him on ignore are certainly right to do so. I've many times considered if I'm detracting from the discussion by engaging this person who's shown himself to be interested in little more than being contradictory and if it wouldn't just be better to follow suit with WP and Ray. Indeed, if anyone thinks that would better benefit the discussion then I'd very much appreciate their thoughts.
In the end, the only reason I continue to call shennanigans with him is that I'm keeping in mind people who are lurking but not engaging in the discussion as I did for so long at the BFF. I think anyone who reads at least one page of this thread in which Sweaty is participating can very quickly on their own come to similar or the same conclusions as most of us already have. However, I would just rather not let one single of his accusations against skeptics here go unanswered and shown for what it really is. For example, Sweaty says some skeptics here are evading him. He is asked who is evading him not once but twice. Both times, no answer. That won't stop him from saying the same thing again soon. Classic Sweaty. Sweaty says that the skeptics on this board are laughable apparently without taking into account just what a ridiculous sweeping statement that is. Any invitation to recant such trollish behaviour is of course met only with silence.
In any case, here we are and after unsuccessful attempts to invalidate my opposition to and illumination of his questionable posting behaviour by claiming emotional/mental dysfunction on my part he has simply chosen the 'I can't hear you' route. This is actually by no means unexpected and rather happy for me as I can address his accusations, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc if I choose to without the having to endure his inane banter. Nevertheless, since others such as Belz are quite familiar with Sweaty's MO by now and are most excellent at addressing him I will only do so when I think a key point has gone unmentioned. For anyone not so familiar, in short if you choose to engage Sweaty you can expect semantic games, obfuscation, dodging/ignoring, condescendance, drama queen antics, and pointless contradiction to be par for the course. As has already been mentioned his posting behaviour has already caused him to be banned at the BFF (luckily for him, the JREF is decidedly more tolerant). You will rarely see any actual substantial statement made but please be aware that Sweaty's current bigfoot beliefs (as elsewhere stated) are based on and prioritized as 1) the sightings claims are the strongest evidence 2) the PGF 3) the Memorial Day footage.
A few points:
Now then, I think I've gotten that monkey off my back.
In the end, the only reason I continue to call shennanigans with him is that I'm keeping in mind people who are lurking but not engaging in the discussion as I did for so long at the BFF. I think anyone who reads at least one page of this thread in which Sweaty is participating can very quickly on their own come to similar or the same conclusions as most of us already have. However, I would just rather not let one single of his accusations against skeptics here go unanswered and shown for what it really is. For example, Sweaty says some skeptics here are evading him. He is asked who is evading him not once but twice. Both times, no answer. That won't stop him from saying the same thing again soon. Classic Sweaty. Sweaty says that the skeptics on this board are laughable apparently without taking into account just what a ridiculous sweeping statement that is. Any invitation to recant such trollish behaviour is of course met only with silence.
In any case, here we are and after unsuccessful attempts to invalidate my opposition to and illumination of his questionable posting behaviour by claiming emotional/mental dysfunction on my part he has simply chosen the 'I can't hear you' route. This is actually by no means unexpected and rather happy for me as I can address his accusations, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc if I choose to without the having to endure his inane banter. Nevertheless, since others such as Belz are quite familiar with Sweaty's MO by now and are most excellent at addressing him I will only do so when I think a key point has gone unmentioned. For anyone not so familiar, in short if you choose to engage Sweaty you can expect semantic games, obfuscation, dodging/ignoring, condescendance, drama queen antics, and pointless contradiction to be par for the course. As has already been mentioned his posting behaviour has already caused him to be banned at the BFF (luckily for him, the JREF is decidedly more tolerant). You will rarely see any actual substantial statement made but please be aware that Sweaty's current bigfoot beliefs (as elsewhere stated) are based on and prioritized as 1) the sightings claims are the strongest evidence 2) the PGF 3) the Memorial Day footage.
A few points:
Well, as usual, Sweaty's doesn't seem to understand between evidence and proof. As for the above, we have neither. No type specimen and no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny that would indicate that a type specimen is out there to be obtained.
Indeed, Sweaty responded to #3230 in #3231 with a semantic tactic. He's since been given the definitions and difference explanation he asked for but has NOT answered Belz's question.
Sweaty refuses to admit that dermal ridge claims have been thoroughly debunked. He also has admitted in an appeal to authority that he really hasn't considered the track evidence much. (Too much science, I guess.)
Now then, I think I've gotten that monkey off my back.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
belz wrote:
The subject of the Patterson film may be a real Bigfoot. Regardless of whether or not you label it as "reliable" evidence...it still IS evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
The film has been analysed very thoroughly....and it's held up nicely as a possibly legitimate Bigfoot film.
As far as why we don't have proof of Bigfoot yet, all I can say is "I don't know".
And as far as the phrase "reliable evidence" goes....I still need a more complete explanation as to what determines "reliable".
I have to go back and find some statements and questions about that....and I'll re-post them as soon as I can.
If you don't include sighting reports, pictures, and footprints....what's left as far as evidence? Videos and cultural legends?
The subject of the Patterson film may be a real Bigfoot. Regardless of whether or not you label it as "reliable" evidence...it still IS evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
The film has been analysed very thoroughly....and it's held up nicely as a possibly legitimate Bigfoot film.
As far as why we don't have proof of Bigfoot yet, all I can say is "I don't know".
And as far as the phrase "reliable evidence" goes....I still need a more complete explanation as to what determines "reliable".
I have to go back and find some statements and questions about that....and I'll re-post them as soon as I can.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Just to set the record straight, that wasn't MY phrase at all..
I just filled in the blanks of a question that SweatyFoot prepared, and kept badgering me to answer .. Anyone who cares to check can see that this is so..
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Sightings, tracks, and the PGF are evidence of bigfoot's existence like respective UFO evidence is evidence of ET's on earth.
Kinda like me getting a static shock and claiming it cursed is evidence of demon activity. Or doesn't that compare? If not, how so?
Kinda like me getting a static shock and claiming it cursed is evidence of demon activity. Or doesn't that compare? If not, how so?
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
kitakaze wrote:
Actually...my response was two questions:
Discussion boards are ALL ABOUT Q & A.....It's not a "semantic tactic".
I'll be happy to answer any question that belz asks me.
I'm sorry if trying to have an in-depth debate troubles some skeptics here......but that's just the way it works.
Actually...my response was two questions:
Discussion boards are ALL ABOUT Q & A.....It's not a "semantic tactic".
I'll be happy to answer any question that belz asks me.
I'm sorry if trying to have an in-depth debate troubles some skeptics here......but that's just the way it works.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Greg, I answered it in similar if not effectually the same way, as I recall. I didn't get a wisdom of kitty sig, though. Poo. Oh well, the 'reliable' face-plant is enough for me.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Sweaty consistently demonstrates a failure to understand 'how it works'.
Oh well, sightings are some of the absolute weakest evidence of BF, period. Many people also claim to see Greys, chupacabra, and the big J. Next!
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Are you kidding? Class B! Class C! Rock piles, tree breaks, rock tossing, sounds in the night, nests, BF lounge structures, hairs (paging Dr. Farrenbach), and all sorts of other wishful thinking. Bigfootery thrives on it.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,680
Funny you should mention track concealment. In Biscardi's recent radio program MK Davis brings forth his evidence for Patty concealing her own tracks. Among the 20+ stills and animations he had uploaded for viewing (now gone) was the short clip from National Geographic showing the first moments of the Patty encounter. Davis sees parallel furrows behind Patty's feet and is postulating that Patty dragged her heels through the sand to conceal her own tracks. He even says she does this before she realizes that P&G are following her. Davis named that NG clip file "Track Hiding". KKZ, you really need to listen to that program to get the flavor of MK Davis and how he thinks. Davis asks Heironimus if he ever dragged his heels during the filming. Why? Because he is now insisting that Patty intentionally drags her heels. I won't get into this stuff much in this thread, because it should instead be done in the PGF thread.
Mangler, welcome to JREF. I've appreciated many of your postings on BFF.
RayG
Master Poster
Don't forget poo, blood, fingerprints, DNA results, and... <drum roll> the single most supportive evidence in the world... Joyce!
RayG
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,680
I actively avoid any engagement with Baby Dangling, and feel really good about it. I have no concerns whatsoever for what any readers may think about this.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I'm going to beat Baby D to the punch and jump all over you seeing as Joyce represents a sighting report. A really believable one, too. You know, if belief is what turns your crank.Don't forget poo, blood, fingerprints, DNA results, and... <drum roll> the single most supportive evidence in the world... Joyce!
RayG
Do nad prints count?kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
mangler, I officially apologize for briefly entertaining the thought that you might be Beckjord. Ray rightly pointed out that Cedrip would never allude to superior intelligence. As has been pointed out, it's your input at the BFF that was ringing a bell. Again, looking forward to your input here.
- Status