Jump to content

Information Wanted: Roger Patterson


Daniel Perez

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

So, kit....'Yes' or 'No'...

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable degree-of-probability' that Bigfoot exists, in North America? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yes, I do, if you propose Bigfoot exists in a similar fashion to the kermode bear. Even that would be really bizarre, but not an impossibility. If you think it exists across North America, I think there is a boot knocking around in your dryer. Bigfoot is a 21st century mermaid seen here there and everywhere. I think there is a 0.01 - 1% chance that any of those sightings are real, which may seem insignificant, but to me it's enough to keep interest in claims of reliable evidence because if I am wrong, we all win.  

 

Sweaty wants to talk about if it is reasonable to think David Griffin and Brian Gosselin saw a Bigfoot, but Sweaty does not want to talk about if it is reasonable to think there are other more plausible explanations...

 

 


SweatyYeti, on 10 Nov 2014 - 1:04 PM, said:snapback.png



 

Is it reasonable to think that Brian Gosselin is being honest, in his (multiple witness) sighting testimony?  'Yes' or 'No'? 

 

 

 

SweatyYeti, on 29 Oct 2014 - 9:10 PM, said:snapback.png



 

How about David Griffin....is it reasonable to think that he is being honest in his testimony, when he says...."I saw what I saw...and, I know what I saw"....(at about the 3:50 mark)...

 

 

 

Welcome to open-minded maverick thinking...

Bigfundy1.jpg

 


 

 

Have you seen any of your work??... :lol: ....('click' to enlarge)...

 

 

Have you seen yours?...

 

SweatyYeti, on 05 Oct 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:snapback.png


As a comparison to the Poser skeletal images....(created by Mangler, on Jref)....I took two Frames from another computer-generated skeleton animation...(with the arms swung at angles similar/"close enough" to those in Mangler's graphic)...

 

 

....and measured the lengths of the upper-arms. The lengths are virtually identical.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Yes, I do, if you propose Bigfoot exists in a similar fashion to the kermode bear. Even that would be really bizarre, but not an impossibility. If you think it exists across North America, I think there is a boot knocking around in your dryer. Bigfoot is a 21st century mermaid seen here there and everywhere. 

 

 

The question I asked, kit...is very simply asking about the 'weight' that the evidence for Bigfoot carries...as weighed by you.

 

Your answer does not require any input from me...therefore, the 'condition' in your answer..."if you propose Bigfoot exists blah blah blah".....is irrelevant.

 

You have been ranting about 'Bigfoot's existence' on two major Discussion forums over the last 8 years....to the tune of about 15,000 posts....often times insulting people's intelligence, and speaking in a condescending/mocking tone towards those people.

 

Yet, in a simple question regarding the 'probability/likelihood' of Bigfoot's existence, as you see it....you have not been able to provide a simple, straightforward answer as to whether you think the evidence, as a whole, carries a "reasonable probability" of Bigfoot existing....or not.

 

If you have not yet made such an assessment...then I suggest that you stop handing-out insults, until you do figure it out. 

 

 

Btw, apparantly kitakaze has made such a determination. On JREF...in a thread entitled "Simple Question for Bigfoot Enthusiasts...Why No Unambiguous Photos/Videos of Bigfoot?".....in Post #1, he states his thoughts very clearly. 

 

 

Oh, just one more thing...care to try taking another whack at answering my 'Simple Question', kit? :)

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

Sweaty wants to talk about if it is reasonable to think David Griffin and Brian Gosselin saw a Bigfoot, but Sweaty does not want to talk about if it is reasonable to think there are other more plausible explanations...

 

 

Most definitely not with you

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

The question I asked, kit...is very simply asking about the 'weight' that the evidence for Bigfoot carries...as weighed by you.

 

The weight the evidence carries is between 0.01 - 1% as weighed by me. 

 

 

 

Your answer does not require any input from me...therefore, the 'condition' in your answer..."if you propose Bigfoot exists blah blah blah".....is irrelevant.

 

Not you, anyone. If anyone thinks Bigfoot exists like the kermode bear, it would be really bizarre if it were true, but not at all impossible and thus a reasonable belief. If any person thinks it exists across North America, I think they have a boot knocking around in their dryer. How reasonable I think Bigfoot belief is requires the condition of the input of other people's specific beliefs. The way I believed in Bigfoot I think was reasonable. If when I was a believer you suggested to me that Bigfoot would come into human habitation in Whitehall, New York, I'd say it was five alarm Sylvia Browne Martian pupil UFO wars nonsense. 

 

 

 

Oh, just one more thing...care to try taking another whack at answering my 'Simple Question', kit?  :)

 

Most definitely not with you.

 

Not if you can not answer a simple yes/no question about the sightings that you yourself was asking about.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

How reasonable I think 'Bigfoot belief' is requires the condition of the input of other people's specific beliefs. 

 

 

That is not what I asked you. Here is the question again...

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America?  'Yes' or 'No'? :popcorn:

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

The weight the evidence carries is between 0.01 - 1% as weighed by me

 

And, as a follow-up, kit wrote:

 

 

 1% is a reasonable probability to me or else I would not have an interest in examining claims of reliable evidence.

 

 

And in the Jref thread....you used the words "ludicrous" and "insane".  

 

Contradiction....dude. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"And in the Jref thread....you used the words "ludicrous" and "insane".  

 

Contradiction....dude."

 

Yes, I very much did use the words "ludicrous" and "insane"...

 

...about that very notion I think is ludicrous and insane which you can not take away...

 

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane.

 

I believed in Bigfoot and it was totally reasonable given the manner in which I thought Bigfoot existed and the information available to me. If I thought it was across the continent with a viable breeding population with no reliable evidence that would be five alarm Sylvia Browne Martian pupils.

 

"That is not what I asked you. Here is the question again...

 

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America?  'Yes' or 'No'?"

 

If you can not answer a simple yes/no question about the sightings that you yourself were asking about, you deserve no accommodation whatsoever. You brought up Griffin and Gosselin's sightings and you will not even answer a simple yes/no question about whether there are plausible explanations for their sightings that don't include real Bigfoots. 

 

Fundamentalism at its purist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane.

 

And:

 

The weight the evidence carries is between 0.01 - 1% as weighed by me

 

 1% is a reasonable probability to me or else I would not have an interest in examining claims of reliable evidence.

 

 

Contradiction...dude......that you can't take away... :lol:

 

In the Opening Post, and throughout that thread...you did not make the point that the "reported range" was what you considered "ludicrous and insane"....it was simply "Bigfoot's existence", that you were characterizing that way. 

In objecting to Bigfoot's existence....you listed a few specifics...it's 'size'....'range'...and it's 'life activities'. 

 

No-where do you make your alleged "main point" clear....instead, you give a very simple impression......'Bigfoot's existence...and belief in it...is ludicrous/insane/absurd/bizarre'

 

You only singled-out the 'reported range', as being your "main point"...(which it never was)....when I pointed-out your contradiction.

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

If you can not answer a simple yes/no question about the sightings that you yourself were asking about, you deserve no accommodation whatsoever.

 

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America?  'Yes' or 'No'?" :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"In the Opening Post, and throughout that thread...you did not make the point that the "reported range" was what you considered "ludicrous and insane"....it was simply "Bigfoot's existence", that you were characterizing that way. 

 

In objecting to Bigfoot's existence....you listed a few specifics...it's 'size'....'range'...and it's 'life activities'."

 

That was exactly what I did - a proposed giant land mammal living across major industrialized nations in number sufficient to sustain breeding populations. It was pointed out multiple times in the OP. You do not get to take that away and twist it into a fundamentalist straw man.

 

 OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube. You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers.
 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137614

 

All across North America, 400+ sightings a year, across two major industrialized nations in viable breeding numbers and no reliable evidence whatsoever. That is ludicrous and insane. Think it is like the kermode bear? That is not ludicrous and insane and much how I believed in Bigfoot. I'd still want to know how one dismisses other Bigfoot reports.

 

What Bigfoot is reported to do and to do it across the continent and there be no reliable evidence is inherently what I think is absurd. The reported range can no be separated and to try to do so is fundamentalist distortion...

 

That is not a valid argument of why there are no unambiguous photos or images of this supposed giant mammal living, eating, sleeping, pooping, finding each other, mating, and dying all across the continent. Name any of the large mammals of North America currently existing and I can immediately show you that animal on youtube. Why can I not do this with Bigfoot? Insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans and Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all. An animal that you claim will chase people, scream as loud as a jet plane, cause all the woodland creatures to flee before it á la The Smurfs, and level the forest to get at you, and living across NA with viable breeding numbers that have been sustained for tens of thousands of years would have been filmed many, many times by now.

To argue otherwise is just mind-numbingly ridiculous.

 

Pan-continentalism is inherent to my objection.  


"Do you think there is a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America?  'Yes' or 'No'?""

 

Within, yes, such as the kermode bear. Across, no, such as is reported. That's ludicrous. Within a max of about 4 states and two provinces, though even that is strongly pushing what is reasonably probable. I think there's a maximum 1% chance that any of the sightings from those areas are true which is enough to keep my interested in claims of reliable evidence.

 

Are there reasonable explanations for David Griffin and Brian Goesslin's sighints that don't include real Bigfoots? Yes or no.

 

Do not ask any further questions of me about anything if you can yourself answer a basic question about sightings and probabilities which you yourself brought up.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

What Bigfoot is reported to do and to do it across the continent and there be no reliable evidence is inherently what I think is absurd. The reported range can not be separated and to try to do so is fundamentalist distortion...

 

And in the same post, kit wrote:

 

 

Within (North America), yes, (there is a reasonable probability of Bigfoot's existence) such as the (range of) kermode bear.

 

 

So...summarizing kitakaze's convoluted and contradictory explanation....it is "ludicrous/insane/bizarre" to think that Bigfoot exists as reported....(across N.America)......but there is a "reasonable probability" that it exists in a much smaller range...similar to the Kermode Bear......but, at the same time...."Don't talk to me (kit) about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW".

 

:wacko:

 

To add to the fun, kit....would you like to re-post for us Post #395...just the paragraph which includes the word "boogeymen"? :) 

 

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

So let Bigfooters think I am all words and words and words. That's fine. I'll write more words and words. When the hammer falls, I promise you, there will be a storm of words from every corner. 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2126-thoughts-about-longs-book-making-of-bigfoot/page-2

 

 

FYI, kit....nobody puts any weight into any of your words and words and words, anymore... :)

 

You've deep-fried them....between the utter emptiness of your massive claims....your false statements...and your completely contradictory statements. 

 

They are "all done". 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

So...summarizing kitakaze's convoluted and contradictory explanation....it is "ludicrous/insane/bizarre" to think that Bigfoot exists as reported....(across N.America)......but there is a "reasonable probability" that it exists in a much smaller range...similar to the Kermode Bear......but, at the same time...."Don't talk to me (kit) about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW".

 

 

Yes, I specifically asked before stating how Bigfoot is reported (across North America)...

 

If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.

 

It's the same thing I asked backdoc to explain when he was using the remote argument for why Bigfoot is not discovered. I supported that same argument as a believer, but had to acknowledge reports were happening in a way consistent with a social construct, one which could just as reasonably account for all sightings, in the PNW as much as outside it.

 

 
To add to the fun, kit....would you like to re-post for us Post #395...just the paragraph which includes the word "boogeymen"  :)

 

 

 

No. Absolutely not. Let's say you get a video of an unknown type of squid on video from a submersible. You think just because we haven't seen it before scientists will look and say, "Nope. That's fake,"? You're just making excuses, man. There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambigous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe oneday if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. 

 

 

Full post...

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137614&page=10

 

Try as hard as you might to marginalize it, you can never remove pan-continentalism from being central to what  find most absurd about Bigfoot and always have. Twist as hard as you like, I will always have the actual context ready against any quote-mining you try to do.

 

Would you like to ask the simplest of questions regarding probabilities for sightings which you yourself brought up for discussion?

 

Are there reasonable explanations for David Griffin and Brian Goesslin's sighints that don't include real Bigfoots? Yes or no.

 

Sweaty will not even answer such a simple question as that.

 

FYI, kit....nobody puts any weight into any of your words and words and words, anymore... 

 

 

 

One of the basic tenements of fundamentalism is to pretend as if opposition does not exist or is nominal. I am not so fundamentalist that I can not acknowledge that there most certainly are people who put weight in your words and arguments.

 

To pretend as if nobody does the same for me is to act as if critical opposition does not exist when one only has to review any recent posting history of mine to see that people regularly in fact do put weight into my words and arguments.

 

If you seriously expect anyone to accept no one puts any weight in what I bring to the table, I suggest you think of the colour green. I can not plus myself.  

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Try as hard as you might to marginalize it, you can never remove pan-continentalism from being central to what  I find most absurd about Bigfoot and always have.

 

 

What you find "most" absurd?? I thought that was the only thing you found 'absurd' about Bigfoot's possible existence? 

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

Twist as hard as you like,

 

 

I'm not the one with the twisted/convoluted/contradictory argument.....as follows...

 

It is "ludicrous/insane/bizarre" to think that Bigfoot exists as reported....(across N.America)......but there is a "reasonable probability" that it exists in a much smaller range...(similar to the Kermode Bear)......but, yet..."Don't talk to me (kit) about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW".

 

:wacko:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

What you find "most" absurd?? I thought that was the only thing you found 'absurd' about Bigfoot's possible existence? 

 

Why did you think that was the only thing I think is absurd about Bigfoot's possible existence?

 

It is "ludicrous/insane/bizarre" to think that Bigfoot exists as reported....(across N.America)......but there is a "reasonable probability" that it exists in a much smaller range...(similar to the Kermode Bear)......but, yet..."Don't talk to me (kit) about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW".

 

 

Yes, I specifically requested that if one is going to argue a specific area such as I once believed...

 

If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.

 

If one can't show the logic by which they dismiss non-PNW areas, then don't talk to me about the PNW and remote areas, because that is not how Bigfoot is reported and what can dismiss the non PNW reports as social construct can just as easily apply to the PNW reports.

 

However, you would have us believe there are no reasonable explanations for Griffin and Gosselin's reports. You asked if it is reasonable to think they are being honest, which I do.

 

Now you won't answer whether explanations outside of Bigfoot could reasonably explain their accounts and you brought out the sightings in the first place. Here's the question again...

Are there reasonable explanations for David Griffin and Brian Goesslin's sighints that don't include real Bigfoots? Yes or no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DannySpanks

FYI, kit....nobody puts any weight into any of your words and words and words, anymore... :)

Thanks to Kit, I don't even need to post. He beats me to the punch, takes the words out of my mouth, and is about 100 times more eloquent, detailed, and informed than I'll ever be. I've yet to see any proponent get the best of him. Keep up the good work, Kit.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No, no, no, Danny. You don't exist, remember? To Sweaty, Bigfoot in Indiana and New York is more real than you or anyone else who agrees with me. Martian pupils and orbital UFO war apparently are more real than you. 

 

Sweaty needs to project the same fundamentalism used in his arguments onto others so it's time for anti-evolution style quote-mining so that instead of me taking issue with with absurdities like a pan-continental Bigfoot, just the sheer notion of existence is objectionable regardless of the fact I believed in Bigfoot for years while being perfectly reasonable.

 

Sweaty will not even answer the most basic question about sightings and their probabilities which he himself is throwing down and asking about probabilities with. Is it reasonable to think Griffin and Gosselin are honest? Certainly, yes it is. Wait, what? You can do that without having to necessitate Bigfoot as the only plausible explanation? You mean there are others? Let's ask Sweaty about that...

 

Bigfundy1.jpg

 

Sweaty wants to talk about it when he thinks he can manipulate you into either allowing his same viewpoint or making yours look denialist, but he does not want to talk about it when he's being asked to consider reasonably non-Bigfoot explanations.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 but he does not want to talk about it when he's being asked to consider reasonably non-Bigfoot explanations.

 

 

Certainly not with you... :) I value my time...and debating the weight of the evidence, looking to find agreement, with someone who blatantly contradicts themselves is a complete waste of time.

 

kit wrote:

 

Believing in Bigfoot is just fine.

 

 If you think it's because you saw it, fine. If you think it is just really rare, fine. If you think it's based on the evidence you've seen, fine. I did the same thing and that was fine. 

 

And...in "perfect harmony" with that...

 

 

The puffery and self-righteousness, the maverick thinking you believe you're engaging in, parading around Gosselin and Griffin as if these stories they tell are powerful indicators of Bigfoot in New York and Indiana is belief culture at its finest.

 

WASTE of time.

 

Thanks, everyone...for the 'plusses'... :) ...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49350-information-wanted-roger-patterson/?p=873133

 

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

orbital UFO war 

 

Wrong...I don't think there has been any "UFO war" fought over the Earth. Where did I say that I did?? 

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

quote-mining so that instead of me taking issue with with absurdities like a pan-continental Bigfoot, just the sheer notion of existence is objectionable regardless of the fact I believed in Bigfoot for years while being perfectly reasonable.

 

 

kit wrote....sounding as if he is objecting to "the sheer notion of Bigfoot's existence"....(plain and simple)...

 

 

 

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. 

Any excuses or apologism will be dismantled. Can you handle this question?
That is not a valid argument of why there are no unambiguous photos or images of this supposed giant mammal living, eating, sleeping, pooping, finding each other, mating, and dying all across the continent. Name any of the large mammals of North America currently existing and I can immediately show you that animal on youtube. Why can I not do this with Bigfoot? Insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans and Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all. An animal that you claim will chase people, scream as loud as a jet plane, cause all the woodland creatures to flee before it á la The Smurfs, and level the forest to get at you, and living across NA with viable breeding numbers that have been sustained for tens of thousands of years would have been filmed many, many times by now. To argue otherwise is just mind-numbingly ridiculous.

 

Kit's objection....'Bigfoot's existence'....plain and simple

 

Where in those posts did kit state that...."within a smaller range...it's perfectly fine"??  Nowhere. 

 

 

Can you handle this simple question, with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer?... :) ...

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable degree-of-probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America? 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...