Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
SweatyYeti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good, good.

What was the point of it?
Click to expand...

The point ? You have been consistently saying that his sentence meant that Diogenes was 100% sure that such evidence could never exist and that this meant that his mind was closed. You even put that quotation in your signature.

I particularily liked this:

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

In post #3089, in response to this:

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

By me in #3085..

So I guess my "twisted translation" wasn't so "far off as you can get" as you said.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Yes. The difference is that one of them is worthless, and the other is convincing.

Next question.
 
William Parcher said:
Funny you should mention track concealment. ... KKZ, you really need to listen to that program to get the flavor of MK Davis and how he thinks.
Click to expand...
IMO, any discussion of BF elusiveness leads to quick exposure of the inherent flaws of the whole concept. You're right, of course. Davis is an element in the mix that I've paid little attention to and I should know more.

William Parcher said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll call that the benefit of greater experience in such matters. Sometimes, in the momentum of the medium it's easy to forget the bigger picture that you're ultimately engaging in an exercise in futility with a guy who just wants to believe in bigfoot and proceeds to do so without the benefit of sound reasoning. Maybe we should all just live up to his accusations and actively avoid him and let him get back to his Patty is a pinhead drawing project.

Hmmm... Right, then. WP and Ray, I'm in. Greg, LTC, Belz, Correa, Steve H, Drapier, Autumn1971, Gbob, and any other laughable skeptics participating of late I'm missing, what say you?

ETA: I would like to see Belz's engagement with Sweaty play itself out at least as far as what's currently being addressed.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
If you don't include sighting reports, pictures, and footprints....what's left as far as evidence? Videos and cultural legends?
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post, again.

Here's what I said:

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
Click to expand...

Note the bolded word.

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.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked this:

"why hasn't there been "reliable" "evidence for" Bigfoot so far ?"

Instead of this:

"Why hasn't there been any evidence for bigfoot so far ?"

The film has been analysed very thoroughly....and it's held up nicely as a possibly legitimate Bigfoot film.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

As far as why we don't have proof of Bigfoot yet, all I can say is "I don't know".
Click to expand...

That was not my question. THIS was my question:

"Why hasn't there been "reliable" "evidence for" Bigfoot so far ?"

Note the bolded, redded and blown up word.

And as far as the phrase "reliable evidence" goes....I still need a more complete explanation as to what determines "reliable".
Click to expand...

That, however, I can oblige:

re·li·a·ble /rɪˈlaɪəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lahy-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information.

[Origin: 1560–70; rely + -able]

—Related forms
re·li·a·bil·i·ty, re·li·a·ble·ness, noun
re·li·a·bly, adverb

—Synonyms trusty, authentic, consistent. Reliable, infallible, trustworthy apply to persons, objects, ideas, or information that can be depended upon with confident certainty. Reliable suggests consistent dependability of judgment, character, performance, or result: a reliable formula, judge, car, meteorologist. Infallible suggests the complete absence of error, breakdown, or poor performance: an infallible test, system, marksman. Trustworthy emphasizes the steady and honest dependability which encourages one's confidence, belief, or trust: trustworthy and accurate reports.
—Antonyms undependable, questionable, deceitful.
Click to expand...

From Dictionary.com

As for the definition of "reliable" pertaining to my question, I believe I was quite clear:

Assuming the definition of "reliable" is "that can be verified, independently, by other people using a variety of techniques"
Click to expand...

What part of this is ambiguous ?
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Actually...my response was two questions:
Click to expand...

In typical SweatyYeti fashion. I vote for a change of name. We should call you SlipperyYeti.

I'll be happy to answer any question that belz asks me.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.

Belz...: "So, are we there, yet ?"
Sweaty: "What's 'there' ?"

Belz...: "So, did we catch a lot of fish ?"
Sweaty: "What would you consider 'many' ?"

Belz...: "So, could you pass me the salt ?"
Sweaty: "Depends what you mean by 'pass'."

Belz...: "So, do you think Bush was a good president, overall ?"
Sweaty: "Over all what ?"

Belz...: "So, what do you think of the situation in the middle-east ?"
Sweaty: "Depends..."

Belz...: "So, why hasn't there been any reliable bigfoot evidence, so far ?"
Sweaty: "Reliable ?"
 
First off l do not claim to know all that much about tracking although I do hold a level 2 certificate (obtained many years ago when I was a bit more into this quest) in track and sign and have been told I could pass evaluation for level 1 trailing if I could/would come up with certified field time. I guess what I'm claiming is that I know a bit more than your average professional tracker and far more than most SAR personnel as well as most law enforcement trained trackers.

What does all this mean, well it means nothing in relation to bigfoot because I can not find (in 30 years) sign/spoor of this creature. It also means that all the expert trackers that hold certificates above and beyond me, (I think there are 12 or 13 levels to master tracker) have also found no sign/spoor. You would be surprised at how many trackers and big game guides have given this a shot. If this folklore does indeed turn verifiable one could write their own check, money is a great motivator.


Belz...

There is evidence that tracks were made, we have impression casts to prove this, there are also photos. Impression casts/photos of impressions equals tracks. Even if those tracks where drawn in the sand by a person they are still considered tracks,

Track; evidence, as a mark or a series of marks, that something has passed.

The tracks do not just appear out of nowhere, what I am trying to imply is, in my opinion (something) people/bears make the majority of these tracks with other known animals creating the remainder. I have watched/caught people faking tracks, I have witnessed bears create overstep impressions that somewhat resemble large human footprints, I have also witnessed bounding animals in snow leaving track-ways that after a few days somewhat resembled bipedal walking. What I have never witnessed is a large hairy bipedal creature leaving spoor of any kind whatsoever. I have also never came across spoor from an unknown species of animal.


What all this says to me, IMO, is that although their is evidence of tracks, these tracks/impression casts do not merit the value that some have implied, and in my opinion this evidence is, insufficient. This is where I run into problems with many in the BF community, I will not, cannot, state that there is a North American Primate or Whatever the hell it's suppose to be out there based on this so called evidence pool that seems to be growing by the hour like a F#(%!^N alien monster. If the heavies would simply state, entertain the possibility, I think everything Bigfoot/Sasquatch would go much smoother. Speculation does not make something fact, although fact can eventually come from ones speculation.


William Parcher,

I have never witnessed an animal covering its own track/sign, animals leave track/sign in many shapes, sizes and scents, they do this for very specific reasons. Concealing evidence of ones trail is a very human characteristic.

Every-time I hear MK's name (as well as some other's) I'm reminded of the joke, "The rodeo came to town but only the clowns showed up".


Just so my moral philosophy about wildlife is crystal clear, I feel that there is plenty of room on this earth for all of gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatos.



m
 
mangler said:
There is evidence that tracks were made, we have impression casts to prove this, there are also photos.
Click to expand...

As I said, there is similar "evidence" of ghosts, but those usually aren't taken seriously. Wonder why ?

Impression casts/photos of impressions equals tracks. Even if those tracks where drawn in the sand by a person they are still considered tracks,
Click to expand...

Man-made crop circles are still crop circles, yes.

Track; evidence, as a mark or a series of marks, that something has passed.
Click to expand...

Weak evidence. Why don't we ever find live or dead bigfoot ??

What I have never witnessed is a large hairy bipedal creature leaving spoor of any kind whatsoever. I have also never came across spoor from an unknown species of animal.
Click to expand...

Which, in and of itself, should say something, don't you agree ?

What all this says to me, IMO, is that although their is evidence of tracks, these tracks/impression casts do not merit the value that some have implied, and in my opinion this evidence is, insufficient. This is where I run into problems with many in the BF community, I will not, cannot, state that there is a North American Primate or Whatever the hell it's suppose to be out there based on this so called evidence pool that seems to be growing by the hour like a F#(%!^N alien monster. If the heavies would simply state, entertain the possibility, I think everything Bigfoot/Sasquatch would go much smoother. Speculation does not make something fact, although fact can eventually come from ones speculation.
Click to expand...

Ah, then we agree.
 
From P.Z. Myers's excellent science blog Pharyngula on some creationist's demand for proof of evolution:

Finney has admitted his actual goal now, though, and I do think that this ought to be smacked down hard.

Finney, a Maryville Republican, said he wants the department to say there's no scientific proof for the theory of evolution and to let schools teach creationism or intelligent design.
Click to expand...
That is a fundamental misconception, and one I wish we could somehow hammer into these gomers' heads. There is no scientific proof of anything…proof isn't something scientists deal with at all. It's an inappropriate demand in several ways.

* It singles out evolution, but as I said, there is no scientific proof of anything. Why not question cell theory or electromagnetism?
* If Finney is going to demand "proof", where's the proof for creationism or intelligent design? He's awfully inconsistent.
* The word Finney is actually looking for is not "proof", but "evidence". Evidence is what we look for in science classes. There is evidence for evolution; there is none for creationism or intelligent design. Case closed.

Finney is a kind of standard issue pretentious creationist boob, and he's said what his kind always say … a load of codswallop.
Click to expand...

It seems like it parallels a discussion we've been having here.
 
Nice, Drapier. It reminds me of a young girl rather emotionally troubled who was a devout Christian and had been taken in by a local chruch group only to wind up in an affair with it's married leader.

I knew she was too far gone and was basically cult bait but I at least tried to listen to her. This is the evidence she offered in support of her beliefs (paraphrased):

'The other day I was praying to God for a cheeseburger. I just really wanted a cheeseburger. Well, the very next day my friend came over with a cheesburger for me! Bless the lord.'

I basically smiled and nodded then backed away slowly.
 
belz wrote:
As for the definition of "reliable" pertaining to my question, I believe I was quite clear:


Assuming the definition of "reliable" is "that can be verified, independently, by other people using a variety of techniques"
Click to expand...

What part of this is ambiguous ?
Click to expand...



Yesterday I said I was going to look up some posts pertaining to an explanation of "reliable evidence"......
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.
Click to expand...

If you can wait until I do that, I'll explain further.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
'The other day I was praying to God for a cheeseburger. I just really wanted a cheeseburger. Well, the very next day my friend came over with a cheesburger for me! Bless the lord.'

I basically smiled and nodded then backed away slowly.
Click to expand...

That's so very nice of you. Belz... is rarely that accomodating to other people's silly beliefs.
 
For anyone who might be interested I would like to draw attention to a discussion at the Search for Bigfoot forum in which believers of bigfoot and subsequent Gigantopithecus origin ideas attempt to reconcile their beliefs when presented with the case of Australia's version of bigfoot, the yowie. It is a keen example of the inherent flaws that surface when proponents try to base their beliefs on sound reasoning. Particularily of interest is when footers decide to discount the case for yowie in its evident incompatibility with their ideas. It really does illustrate glaring inconsistencies in some of the central arguments for bigfoot, IMO. Elsewhere on the same board Homo Erectus vs Gigantopithecus debates also produce similar flaws.

Bf on island continents/bf's origin.
 
kitakaze wrote:
I would say that 'easily attributable' is determined by looking at what is known to occur and often does. You have a cast of an indentation in the ground that resembles a large human foot and you submit it as evidence of bigfoot. If I'm a scientist I'm going to require other supporting evidence because if all you have is that cast I'm not going to have any interest in looking at it because hoaxes and misidentifications are the norm for bigfootery claims. Do you have a nice clear gamecam photo that can be PROVEN to not to have been forged or hoaxed? Well, hey now! That's not easily attributable to hoaxing and misidentification. Looks like you've got some "reliable" evidence for what people refer to as bigfoot/sasquatch. Now you've got my attention. Looks like there may be something to this, after all.
Click to expand...

So...."reliable" is determined by whether or not a piece of evidence can be "easily" attributable to something OTHER than Bigfoot.....and "easily attributable" is determined simply by "if other explanations have been known to occur....then they get the nod."
If ONE person hoaxed a footprint........then ALL footprints can be "easily" attributed to hoaxing.

Here we have what is called "circular reasoning".

Pick ONE piece...any piece...of Bigfoot evidence.....declare it a fake, a hoax, or a lie, and then you can proudly attribute ALL other bits of Bigfoot evidence to fakes, hoaxes, and lies.

NO science required!! :rolleyes:
"Automatic analysis".....when in doubt...throw it ALL out! :boggled:


And as kitakaze very WISELY pointed out....if we have proof that a piece of evidence actually came from Bigfoot......then we would have "reliable evidence".

And that leads back to my question from a few days ago......

"Is there a difference between "reliable evidence" and "proof"???

If so, what is the distinction?
 
Last edited:
belz wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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"?
Click to expand...

Yes. The difference is that one of them is worthless, and the other is convincing.

Next question.
Click to expand...
So...is there a difference in the meanings of these two statements...which use those 2 phrases...

Greg's:
"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."
Click to expand...

and your translation of it.....

he said "no evidence has ever convinced me, so far."
Click to expand...
 
Now, when I hack off Patty's foot, I'm certain it's proof of bigfoot because I caught Patty myself, killed her, and collected her foot.

I don't need any further proof.

In reality it only becomes proof of bigfoot when it has been completely evaluated by science and determined to actually be the foot of a large unknown hairy hominid/primate aka sasquatch.
 
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