Bigfoot: SweatyYeti's confusion of reliable evidence vs proof.

[Correa Neto]

Sure do, Correa.

Only in the minds of the believers excuses for the absence of evidence can justify the absence of evidence. There’s no escape to the fact that there are no reliable pieces of evidence to back bigfeet as real creatures.

Over the years investigators have collected dozens of alleged Yeren hairs from all around China and through laboratory examination have found that “the wild man is in the middle between bears or apes and human beings.”

Hey, are we talking about bigfoot or yeren?
Want to say bigfeet=yeren?

OK, I will not discuss how different these mythical animals seem to be, I will just quote a JREF poster: “bigfoot is everywhere but nowhere”… Make it a transcontinental critter if you want. You just made the situation worse for your claim, since the wider the span, the greater will be the odds of obtaining specimens or reliable evidence. Unless, of course, there is no such animal.

Now, have you read the nonsense you just quoted? Something “between bears or apes or humans”? That article is a waste of time, it does not point towards reliable evidence or peer-reviewed sources, only the same unreliable hearsay and anecdotal stuff. That’s it - bigfoot is an anecdotal critter. What’s next? Crystalinks?

Got DNA assays with the quality I stated? No.

Got imagery with the quality I stated? No.

Since Bigfoot's possible existence is NOT limited to just North America, we can happily include Asia in your requirement for "reliable evidence".

We are discussing bigfeet – a mythical giant upright ape from North America, North America’s abominable snowman. The fossil remain must be from North America.

Gigantopithecus is known to have existed, and it fits the basic description of BIG-foot.
The only question is whether or not it was bipedal......but, since the shape of the jawbone points towards an upright posture, it is evidence (and being a fossil, it's "reliable") of an upright-walking BIG-footed Primate.

No. The shape of the teeth and jawbone points towards bipedalism only according to Krantz. As far as I know, knuckle-walking is the preferred option. I would go a bit ahead and even dare to say the size of the critter is not very consistent with full bipedalism. Not to mention that its habitat was not similar to PNW (or the temperate forests) and to reach North America its habitat would have to expand and include other ecosystems such as tundra, prairies, etc. If you want to discuss bigfoot possible fossil templates, then open a new thread on it.

Having the same 'dermal ridges' in consecutive prints doesn't mean that the prints were made by a real Bigfoot.
A hoaxer could carve dermal ridges into a fake foot, if he felt like putting the time and effort into it.

Read again, especially the part in bold:

4) Casts of consecutive footprints showing the same "dermals" (note - casting artifacts and hoaxery must be ruled out).

By the way, got some?

That being the case...your "reliable" evidence cannot be "relied on" to say that Bigfoot definitely exists.

Sweaty, if it could be used to say that bigfeet exist, then it would be proof… You seem to be backpedalling. The word “reliable” means it can pass through QA/QC. In bigfoot’s case, it means the data has a good “pedigree” and is a good indication that it is worth investigating the issue deeper. Of course, it may be subject to more than one interpretation – and “bigfoot” may not be the best one.

 

[Mad Hom]

LTC and MAD HOM-

I dropped a 'Tossing a 200 lb. pig' at BFF the other day.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23799&view=findpost&p=490584

It was mostly in deference to LTC's obsession with such a tactic, but since MH is into it as well...

It's a great reference to the 411 thread....so I keep it going...thanx for spreading it over to the Think Tank.

As I read that thread I was bemused by how the apologists are of the opinion that skeptics couldn't possibly be able to discern the difference between a schlep strolling across camera in a suit and an actual creature engaging in an activity that couldn't possibly be a schlep in a suit. Good grief these people boggle the mind.

 

[Mad Hom]

Correa Neto wrote:

Having the same 'dermal ridges' in consecutive prints doesn't mean that the prints were made by a real Bigfoot.
A hoaxer could carve dermal ridges into a fake foot, if he felt like putting the time and effort into it.

Finally you are beginning to get it Sweesty....finally.

And so, we're left with varying degrees of "probabilities"......aren't we?

Sweetsy you are indeed a hair splitter aren't you?? My gosh if Bigfoot Nation would just drop their "No Kill" policy and bag a Bigfeetsus this whole discussion would be moot now wouldn't it??

Or failing that...find some DNA already...good grief why doesn't this beast ever leave any of it anywhere?

Or failing that....get some film of a Hairy Biped doing something that would be impossible for a schlep in a suit to do...IE hurling a swine, or breaking off large tree limbs with one hand, or jumping a great distance or something...ANYTHING really...other than slowly and calmly entering the shot stage left and exiting stage right.

Now that stuff would be "reliable" Sweetsy.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

That article is a waste of time, it does not point towards reliable evidence or peer-reviewed sources, only the same unreliable hearsay and anecdotal stuff.
That’s it - bigfoot is an anecdotal critter.

Oh boy.....it sounds like Correa's choking on a HAIR-ball......from China.


Here's a little more Hairy info for you, Correa...

Altogether, more than a thousand (1000 ) footprints have been found in Hubei province, some more than 19 inches long (Poirier etal. 1983, p. 34).

Over 100 ( a hundred ) hairs have been collected, the longest measuring 21 inches. Some of the hairs were supplied by persons who claimed to have seen wildmen; others were taken from trees against which wildmen were said to have rubbed.
Frank E. Poirier, an anthropologist at Ohio State University, reported (Poirier etal. 1983,p. 33): "The hair was studied by the Hubei Provincial Medical College and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing.
The general consensus is that the hair belongs to a higher primate (monkey, ape, or human)."

Link:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/living9.html

We are discussing bigfeet – a mythical giant upright ape from North America, North America’s abominable snowman. The fossil remain must be from North America.

Sorry to disappoint, Correa.....but the mystery of Bigfoot extends AAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL around the world...........and that includes Asia.

 

[Mad Hom]

Sorry to disappoint, Correa.....but the mystery of Bigfoot extends AAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL around the world...........and that includes Asia.

Yeah...and they don't have a body or any DNA there either....oh and this just in Sweetster they have Bigfeetsi....allegedly....in South America and in Australia and in Europe and all over the freeking place...but....and this part is really really important....they don't have a single body or any amount of useful DNA....

....ANYWHERE!!!!!!

The farther Bigfoot Nation spreads the range of Hairy Bipeds the greater the probability that we should have a body by now Sweetsy...and given that this body has not been found the lower the probability that a real flesh and blood creature actually exists.

Sweetsy are you really of the opinion that based on the fact that Hairy Bipeds roam....allegedly....5 of the 7 continents on Earth....it isn't at all disconcerting that we haven't found a body or any DNA anywhere?

 

[kitakaze]

I see in my brief absence, Sweaty, that your frantic desperation to score points on Bigfoot poo-pooing skeptics has once again interefered with your comprehension of what is clearly written in front of you. The subject of this thread is your own confusion with reliable evidence and proof regarding Bigfoot and how those things are differentiated. It's quite enjoyable watching your Gollum dance of glee when you think you've successfully performed.

Unfortunately for your tangible joy all that I need to do to underscore my case is highlight the following two very clear examples of your confusion:

Basically, the fact that you've stated that "reliable evidence" does not guarantee that Bigfoot exists...i.e....is not proof of Bigfoot's existence....means that any evidence which you deem "reliable" is nothing more than just "plain old evidence". The only difference would be the weight (degree of probability)it carries.

There is, in fact, no special type, or category of evidence (short of "proof") which is "reliable", for anything......except to say that there is a "probability" that Bigfoot exists.

'Reliable' evidence indicates only a 'degree of probability' that Bigfoot exists....not a 'certainty'......and whether it's a 50% probability, or a 99% probability, doesn't matter.
We can't rely on that evidence to state that Bigfoot definitely exists.

That was good but let's have it a bit more concise so we get a better understanding of what's at the core of Sweaty's befuddlement:

That being the case...your "reliable" evidence cannot be "relied on" to say that Bigfoot definitely exists.

Now luckily for me Correa knows your confusion as well as I and has made the following point which is a perfect summation of the problem:

Sweaty, if it could be used to say that bigfeet exist, then it would be proof… You seem to be backpedalling. The word “reliable” means it can pass through QA/QC. In bigfoot’s case, it means the data has a good “pedigree” and is a good indication that it is worth investigating the issue deeper. Of course, it may be subject to more than one interpretation – and “bigfoot” may not be the best one.

Unfortunately Correa might have forgotten the fact that time and again we have clear examples of Sweaty not fully reading a post addressing his arguments or confusing its content. Correa made the slight error of putting a key point at the end of his post which multi-quoted you. You were obviously in such a rush to tell us about the global nature you perceive of the Bigfoot phenomenom and how you believe it strengthens your case that missed getting pantsed from the southern hemisphere.

There it is, Sweaty. Nice and simple. Reliable evidence can not in any way be relied upon to assure us the validity of stating that Bigfoot definitely exists. As Correa made quite clear, that is what proof allows. Reliable evidence passes a quality control and quality assurance requirement that allows us proceed with it in investigating the question of whether or not Bigfoot exists. A video of what matches descriptions of a Bigfoot obtained under a clear provenance and doing something that makes hoax highly unlikely can qualify as reliable evidence. It doesn't say for sure that Bigfoot exists, there may be some other explanation. Further investigation will always be needed and we certainly won't be pronouncing Bigfoot real until we have a type specimen.

Some prints or hair which may or may not have come from the source you wish they did does not qualify. You're right that just because a a sequence of prints shows matching dermatoglyphics it does not qualify as reliable evidence. As I already stated, what it does do is rule out dessication ridges as an explanation. Further investigation by qualified professionals and a consensus are needed before we can make determinations about hoaxing and whether or not a human foot was the source.

Your Yeren hair reference certainly does not qualify. We know how bad you are with sources, Sweaty, so please spare us the woo quoting. So no, you sure do not have the DNA evidence in the form of hair samples that Correa referred to.

So, Sweaty, I know you'll hate to admit it but as you can see your dance of mirth and emoticon abuse was rather premature. You continue to demonstrate a clear confusion of reliable evidence and proof regarding Bigfoot, have been given a crystal clear definition long ago of reliable evidence which is in the OP of this thread, and still as expected have no examples of reliable evidence to provide.

 

[kitakaze]

Sorry to disappoint, Correa.....but the mystery of Bigfoot extends AAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL around the world...........and that includes Asia.

Sweaty, when confronted by the absurdity of Bigfoot existing across North America without a type specimen or reliable evidence decides to remedy the situation by compounding the problem globally.

Let us hope Sweaty never attempts to practice medicine. "Oh look, a broken leg. Shall we hit it with hammers and mallets to see if we can restore the shape?"

Here's analysis and research for you to conduct, Sweaty. It can be a sort of frustration release activity for you and carcharodon/Lyndon if you like:

http://www.britishhominidresearch.co.uk/

I have just given you a link to British Hominid Research UK. Since Lyndon is in the UK he can help you in analyzing that important sighting evidence. He might even be able to make a few calls. You never know, you may even have the great luck in finding a British equivalent of Joyce (a woman who claims a Bigfoot sighting in New York that Sweaty spoke to by phone after getting her number off her Bigfoot report on the internet and considers to be strong Bigfoot evidence)to reinforce your Bigfoot beliefs. If any of those sightings have a correlation with the British archaeological sites that you believe have connections with what you think are structures on Mars I will not be held account for you mind being blown. Just don't forget to think outside the box.

 

[Drewbot]

Sorry to disappoint, Correa.....but the mystery of Bigfoot extends AAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL around the world...........and that includes Asia.

Thank you Sweaty. You're point about hairy-beast-sightings extending throughout the entire world, is the second most damning factoid about the Bigfoot myth.

#1 There is no reliable evidence or proof of bigfoot's existence

#2 The fact that hairy beasts are reported by human beings in every forested area of the world, and rural areas, leads one to believe that Bigfoot is not a physical entity, but a psychological and/or neurological one.

Maybe it is a universally-human thing, to see the big hairy boogy man in non-urban places.

 

[RayG]

Here's a little more Hairy info for you, Correa...

Frank E. Poirier, an anthropologist at Ohio State University, reported (Poirier etal. 1983,p. 33): "The hair was studied by the Hubei Provincial Medical College and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing.
The general consensus is that the hair belongs to a higher primate (monkey, ape, or human)."

Sweaty, have you actually communicated with Professor Poirier about this? Was DNA testing conducted? What methods did they use to make their determination?

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh boy.....it sounds like Correa's choking on a HAIR-ball......from China.


Here's a little more Hairy info for you, Correa...

Sounds like you are choking on your own foot, sweaty. Hair samples which may belong to monkeys, apes or humans found at a continent where primates of all types abound are not reliable evidence of the existence of giant bipedal apes unknown to science in Asia or North America. Unless, of course every single known species of monkeys and apes can be ruled out.

Sorry to disappoint, Correa.....but the mystery of Bigfoot extends AAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL around the world...........and that includes Asia.

Sorry to disappoint sweaty, but -even assuming your statement is true- this points towards a cultural and/or psichological nature for the creature.

Not to mention that in many cases it can be demonstrated that the correlations with a bigfoot-like creature is nothing but myth-twisting and/or cherry-picking of informations from the part of some cryptozoologists. We discussed this before. The present thread is on what can be considered as reliable evidence, but feel free to start a thread on "Global Bigfoot" if you want to discuss this subject.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

So, Sweaty, I know you'll hate to admit it but as you can see your dance of mirth and emoticon abuse was rather premature.

You continue to demonstrate a clear confusion of reliable evidence and proof regarding Bigfoot, have been given a a crystal clear definition long ago of reliable evidence which is in the OP of this thread....

A "crystal clear" definition???

You mean 'so clear' that you gave conflicting answers to this simple question...

"Can there be "reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence without Bigfoot even existing?"

Here is your confusion again, kitty, from the OP of this thread.......along with a little elaboration...

kitakaze wrote:

I answered that there could be NO such evidence if Bigfoot did in fact not exist. I think to be accurate we should be saying "YES but it's extremely unlikely."

Your first answer was "NO"......but then, after you thought about it a while, you realized your answer meant that "reliable evidence" would equal.......be the exact same thing as......."proof" of Bigfoot's existence.

(So much for your "clear distinction" between "reliable evidence" and "proof"! )


So......one fine, confuzed day.....you decided to change your answer to "Yes".

Apparently, you were confused.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, have you actually communicated with Professor Poirier about this?

No, I haven't.

Was DNA testing conducted? What methods did they use to make their determination?

RayG

I don't have the time to check into, and verify, the details of the article.

I only had enough time to find the article....but, anyone who does have the time, can try looking into it further.

 

[kitakaze]

Your first answer was "NO"......but then, after you thought about it a while, you realized your answer meant that "reliable evidence" would equal.......be the exact same thing as......."proof" of Bigfoot's existence.

(So much for your "clear distinction" between "reliable evidence" and "proof"! )


So......one fine, confuzed day.....you decided to change your answer to "Yes".

Apparently, you were confused.

Yes, Sweaty, I did make that mistake. It is specified and recognized in the OP. Very good job understanding that and echoing it. Do you have an actual rebuttal for the arguments in my post you are quoting or just that impotent parroting of what I have already made clear?

 

[kitakaze]

We know how bad you are with sources, Sweaty,

I think the point I made above is sufficiently demonstrated here:

Sweaty, have you actually communicated with Professor Poirier about this?

No, I haven't.

Was DNA testing conducted? What methods did they use to make their determination?

RayG

I don't have the time to check into, and verify, the details of the article.

I only had enough time to find the article....but, anyone who does have the time, can try looking into it further.

Sweaty's in a rush to score points. He didn't have time to check if the shot was good.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Drewbot wrote:

Thank you Sweaty. You're point about hairy-beast-sightings extending throughout the entire world, is the second most damning factoid about the Bigfoot myth.

You're absolutely welcome to your opinion, Drew......but how much is your opinion truly worth, would you say?

 

[Drewbot]

Drewbot wrote:

You're absolutely welcome to your opinion, Drew......but how much is your opinion truly worth, would you say?

how much is it worth to who(m)?

There are some places where it is worth less than in other places.

 

[SweatyYeti]

how much is it worth to who(m)?

There are some places where it is worth less than in other places.

I'm not surprised that you chose not to answer the question, Drew.

As I've recently pointed-out here.....it's always the skeptics who are afraid to answer questions.


I have no problem saying that my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's here.....a grand total of 2 cents.
An opinion, presented by itself and unsupported, is....effectively....worthless.
Unsupported opinions simply do not (or, should not) carry any real weight....especially on an internet discussion board, which is open to EVERYBODY on the planet. Out of millions of potential opinions expressed about Bigfoot...are we going to argue over who's got the "best" one??

So, the bottom line is....you are, by all means, welcome to your opinion....and free to express it...

You're point about hairy-beast-sightings extending throughout the entire world, is the second most damning factoid about the Bigfoot myth.

....but as far as I'm concerned...my response to it is this...

"Good for you.....and whoop-dee-do!!"

I see it differently.

 

[tyr_13]

As I've recently pointed-out here.....it's always the skeptics who are afraid to answer questions.



I see it differently.

You know, you should be a politician. Get accused of not answering things? Just accuse your opponent of it! Works every time you are talking to people who aren't paying attention.

Oh, you see it differently? Nice opinion. How much is that worth?

 

[RayG]

No, I haven't.

.
I didn't think so. When I spoke to Professor Poirier back in 2007 about the hair-testing he was involved with at Fudan University, he admitted that no DNA tests were conducted, and it was his understanding that the tests conducted could not determine the origin of the hair. (you know, the species the hair actually came from)

I don't have the time to check into, and verify, the details of the article.

I only had enough time to find the article....but, anyone who does have the time, can try looking into it further.

.
Yes, yes, yes, we realize you don't want to waste time with pesky details. Things like facts and whatnot.

In this instance the article you found originally came from the pseudo-scientific book Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo.

That book isn't exactly a cornerstone of factual information, and the authors aren't exactly unbiased reporters of the truth.

In fact, the authors of said book have been criticized for their lack of factual documentation and scientific investigation.

Sweaty, using weak science to prop up weak arguments isn't going to provide 'reliable evidence' for bigfoot, nor increase the 'probabilities' of his existence.

RayG

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/3185_iforbidden_archaeologys_imp_12_30_1899.asp

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/3185_iforbidden_archaeologys_imp_12_30_1899.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, snap!