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

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
In that line, quoted above....nothing is said about "reliable DNA".....only "DNA".

So................Correa asked me if there was any "DNA evidence".

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.

Holy squatch sh** Sweaty, didja not read/comprehend the two important words that preceded Correa's list? Try and keep up with the rest of us wouldja.

Here, we'll replay it again just for you Sweaty...

Hey Ray....didja not read/comprehend what I wrote before that???!

Here, I'll replay it again....just for you...

The phrase "ANY of the above" refers to the specific items he listed....1 through 4.

My answer....."Sure do" ....refered to one of those specific items, #1...."Hair DNA".


Correa's characterization of those items (as "reliable") is something different than the items themselves.

I had already acknowledged that Correa was asking for evidence which he considers "reliable".

Try harder to keep up with the conversation, Ray.
It should be easier for you, anyway....you're not trying to carry on conversations with 3-5 other people, at the same time...in 2 threads....with a very limited amount of free-time to do it in, to boot.

 

[kitakaze]

Try harder to keep up with the conversation, Ray.
It should be easier for you, anyway....you're not trying to carry on conversations with 3-5 other people, at the same time...in 2 threads....with a very limited amount of free-time to do it in, to boot.

How do you know RayG is not posting in multiple threads with multiple people?

Seems like your whining now about getting utterly powned. I realize constant evasion is hard work.

You still haven't answered my question, BTW.

And...

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.

No, you didn't. I've demonstrated your opinion is pretty worthless when it comes to Bigfoot evidence. Keep running.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

How do you know RayG is not posting in multiple threads with multiple people?

Wow....you could be right, kitty!! I never thunk of that!

But actually, since Ray never has done much more than stand on the sidelines, and throw in a comment, here or there......I'm sure he hasn't been overwhelmed with lengthy debates, anywhere on this board.

Seems like your whining now about getting utterly powned. I realize constant evasion is hard work.

If it makes you feel good, kitty, you go right ahead and believe that!

You still haven't answered my question, BTW.

Which question was that?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

So, if "reliable evidence" only indicates a certain "degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists....as Correa says, in his definition....then what differentiates "reliable evidence" from just plain, ordinary, everyday "evidence" (which also only indicates a "degree of probability") of Bigfoot's existence?

Think about it this way, Sweaty. You give me some goofy footprints with four, five toes, whatever, an entertaining story, and a very questionable image. If you want to argue that its evidence, I'll spot you. Just don't try and tell me it's any good.

Now give me a clear video of a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating some liver or making poopy that comes under circumstances that makes hoaxing very unlikely.
You have just given me reliable evidence for Bigfoot but not proof.

How interesting, kitty, that you used the word 'un-likely'.

"Likelihood", and "probability" are the calling cards of evidence......whether the evidence is weak, or strong.
It's all about "probabilities".....a gray area, in-between the two black-and-white areas of 'absolute proof' and 'absolute implausibility'.

So the question remains.........still unanswered...

What is the difference (in terms of a precise 'definition', rather than just more 'examples') between "reliable" evidence, and common, ordinary types of evidence, which carry varying degrees of weight??

In other words....can "reliable evidence" indicate a low probability of Bigfoot's existence...or does it always indicate a very high probability of Bigfoot's existence?

...a clear video of a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating some liver...

How about a clear video of an alleged Bigfoot simply walking along?
I would think that that, potentially, could be "reliable" evidence of Bigfoot's existence.
If so....what would be some aspects of the subject of the video, that would indicate it is...most likely...a real Bigfoot?

Would 'apparent muscle movement' be one aspect?

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, so now the fact that a probability is involved means that all explanations are equally probable?


I don't think so.

 

[Correa Neto]

Of course not.

For a woo, the woo explanation is the most probable one.

 

[kitakaze]

But actually, since Ray never has done much more than stand on the sidelines, and throw in a comment, here or there......I'm sure he hasn't been overwhelmed with lengthy debates, anywhere on this board.

You are in actuality in front of our eyes trying to argue RayG has it easier than you. You, sir, continue to participate while ignoring demonstrations of your blatant errors and failures of reasoning. RayG has a life as we all do and I know your aware that he participates elsewhere outside the JREF. Spare us the special pleading and whining and step up to your own poor arguments. It's much easier than taking the time to post about not having the time to post, no?

Which question was that?

The one you should be fully aware of given I keep reminding you of it. Here:

That's an interesting point you raise about the worth of opinions and whose are better. I wonder, would it be fair to say that an informed opinion is better and worth more than an uninformed or poorly informed opinion? I think it may well indeed be fair to say that. I don't think we're at a loss of you demonstrating a poorly informed opinion. Is it fair to say that, Sweaty? I'm asking you a question. Will you answer it? I think I have a fine example in this thread of you tossing out a poorly informed opinion. Let's see... (snip)

ETA: Forgot to mention that isn't it interesting how Sweaty takes the time to post to #62 by me but completely ignores the key part at the end that points out his crap fact checking, bunk claims, and poorly informed opinions?

 

[kitakaze]

How interesting, kitty, that you used the word 'un-likely'.

"Likelihood", and "probability" are the calling cards of evidence......whether the evidence is weak, or strong.
It's all about "probabilities".....a gray area, in-between the two black-and-white areas of 'absolute proof' and 'absolute implausibility'.

So the question remains.........still unanswered...

What is the difference (in terms of a precise 'definition', rather than just more 'examples') between "reliable" evidence, and common, ordinary types of evidence, which carry varying degrees of weight??

In other words....can "reliable evidence" indicate a low probability of Bigfoot's existence...or does it always indicate a very high probability of Bigfoot's existence?






How about a clear video of an alleged Bigfoot simply walking along?
I would think that that, potentially, could be "reliable" evidence of Bigfoot's existence.
If so....what would be some aspects of the subject of the video, that would indicate it is...most likely...a real Bigfoot?

Would 'apparent muscle movement' be one aspect?

Sweaty, that post contains 5 questions and one further gumming of the concept of reliable evidence regarding Bigfoot. Tell you what, you evolve some semblance of an understanding of forum courtesy and debate structure and responding to the questions and points you've been fleeing from. You do that and I will glady return the courtesy to you and answer those questions and misconceptions.

Confidence in the strength of your position will allow you to do so. Awareness of its weakness will bring more of the same.

ETA: In anticipation of your feigning ignorance I will give you this reminder:

You, sir, have been given a clear definition of reliable evidence and how it differs from proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you were in error when saying that they are the same with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how your understanding of reliable evidence equated proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you make poorly informed opinions without fact-checking and make bold claims of evidence based on that with no meaningful rebuttal.

Your continued predictable evasion is noted.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Tell you what, you evolve some semblance of an understanding of forum courtesy and debate structure and responding to the questions and points you've been fleeing from.

and:

Your continued predictable evasion is noted.

Talking about "forum courtesy"......you are one of the biggest offenders on this board, kitty, as far as showing common courtesy, and respect towards other people goes.

You continue to falsely accuse me of "evading" questions....when the fact of the matter is....as I have repeatedly stated....I do not have enough free-time to respond to all of the questions I'm asked, along with all the misrepresentations of my statements, and the occasional false accusations.


A perfect example of a false accusation, made by you, is in your opening post, in this thread...

For well over a month I have been making repeated requests to Sweaty to address the post and he has in return made repeated posts saying that he will get to it soon, tomorrow, on the weekend, later, eventually.

He has expended more effort saying he will get to it than it would actually take to give some rebuttal to that post.

Despite your implication that I was evading responding to one of your posts.....I responded to your opening post the next day.


Here again is my post...#2 in the thread...

SweatyYeti wrote:

Just a quick, short reply for now....concerning your use of the phrase "reliable evidence".

I'll elaborate on it later.....someday......when I have the time to......and I'm all psyched-up for it.


But for now....


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.

Here is an example of a misrepresentation of what I've said in my posts (in the "Bob Heironimus and Patty" thread)...by Cavemonster:

Your original claim in this thread was that the arm length difference proves that the film of Patty can not be Bob in a suit.

After I asked him for a quote of mine, showing that i had actually made that claim...he replied with this..

These two statements combined strongly suggest that you believe that the disparity in apparent arm length in these two photos is evidence that Bob could not have been in the suit.
If I have misinterpreted your point, I apologize...

Cavey, did, in fact, misinterpret, and then misrepresent my statements.


Here is another fine example of a false accusation made against me, by RayG....

Holy squatch sh** Sweaty, didja not read/comprehend the two important words that preceded Correa's list? Try and keep up with the rest of us wouldja.

Ray was, in fact, the one who missed what had been said.
I gladly, and proudly, threw the accusation ( a correct one, in this case) right back in his face.


The non-stop false accusations, and misrepresentations of my statements is one of the reasons why I've often referred to this forum as a "sewer of a discussion board". This board is swimming in BS.


So, again, kitty....I'm not evading answering any of your questions, because, I fear nothing that you have to say, with regards to your shaky definition of "reliable evidence".
I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion....and also looking forward to your answers to those 5 questions in my earlier post.

It would be greatly appreciated, by me, if you would kindly replace your rudeness and disrespect with something called patience.


To show, yet again, that I'm not evading any questions....from anyone....please feel free to post any questions that you (all) think I'm afraid to answer, and I'll answer them as soon as I possibly can...within a day, or two, at the most.
Please start with the one that you think I'm most afraid to answer....and I'll put that false accusation to rest.....very quickly.



In response to your (predictable) upcoming false accusation, kitty....while it is true that the time I spent writing this, I could have responded to one or more of your questions....I thought I would take a little time to defend myself.....my integrity.......by pointing out the falseness of your accusation.
I place a high priority on defending myself.

To further back-up my claim that I have very limited free-time to respond to everything that I should respond to here.....I haven't posted on the Mid-America board in quite a long time...despite promising Lu, over the last 2 or 3 weeks, that I would start posting there again very soon.

Actually, I'll be taking a break from this board for a while, within the next week, to post some good stuff over there...like the animated-gif of Patty's toes moving up and down...and something I just recently noticed, regarding Patty's left hand.
They'll be impressed....I'm sure!

 

[kitakaze]

You continue to falsely accuse me of "evading" questions....

You haven't shown the accusation to be false.

So, again, kitty....I'm not evading answering any of your questions, because, I fear nothing that you have to say, with regards to your shaky definition of "reliable evidence".

You haven't shown the definition to be shaky.

I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion....and also looking forward to your answers to those 5 questions in my earlier post.

You'll get those answers just as soon as you take care of your loose ends. Not before.

It would be greatly appreciated, by me, if you would kindly replace your rudeness and disrespect with something called patience.

I accord you the respect befitting your behaviour. Dealing with your evasion requires plenty of patience.

To show, yet again, that I'm not evading any questions....from anyone....please feel free to post any questions that you (all) think I'm afraid to answer, and I'll answer them as soon as I possibly can...within a day, or two, at the most.
Please start with the one that you think I'm most afraid to answer....and I'll put that false accusation to rest.....very quickly.

Dare we hope?

1)

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.

No, you didn't. I've demonstrated your opinion is pretty worthless when it comes to Bigfoot evidence. Keep running.

2)

That's an interesting point you raise about the worth of opinions and whose are better. I wonder, would it be fair to say that an informed opinion is better and worth more than an uninformed or poorly informed opinion? I think it may well indeed be fair to say that. I don't think we're at a loss of you demonstrating a poorly informed opinion. Is it fair to say that, Sweaty? I'm asking you a question. Will you answer it? I think I have a fine example in this thread of you tossing out a poorly informed opinion. Let's see...

3)

You, sir, have been given a clear definition of reliable evidence and how it differs from proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you were in error when saying that they are the same with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how your understanding of reliable evidence equated proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you make poorly informed opinions without fact-checking and make bold claims of evidence based on that with no meaningful rebuttal.

My patience continues.

Actually, I'll be taking a break from this board for a while, within the next week, to post some good stuff over there...like the animated-gif of Patty's toes moving up and down...and something I just recently noticed, regarding Patty's left hand.
They'll be impressed....I'm sure!

Your bi-monthly dance performance is wearing you out? I understand.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion....and also looking forward to your answers to those 5 questions in my earlier post.

Sweaty, I know how excited you will be. I had to fight the urge not to crumble like a wet cookie and go ahead and respond to your five questions post before you've done your part. You be glad to know that I have written a full response and saved it so that the moment I see the response from you I've been waiting for I can cut and paste it here lickety-split.

Patience is a virtue.

 

[MattC]

Reliable evidence is used to support or establish a premise, proof is used to support or establish a conclusion. By necessity, then, reliable evidence must come before proof.

It would, for example, require reliable evidence to establish the premise that a certain DNA strand does not come from any known creature. This is no way proves the existence of a Bigfoot directly, merely that there's a strand of DNA whose origins we can't identify. Reliable evidence in this case would be many lab reports upon the sample concluding that this strand of DNA has no match in a database of species' DNA samples.

Establishing the conclusion that Bigfoot exists requires a much higher standard of accuracy. The proof provided must be able to demonstrate the validity of the initial premises, in context of the last example a Bigfoot corpse would need to have a DNA sequence completely unlike anything else we'd seen before, simply being a mutation of an existing species wouldn't cut it.

I hope this has helped.

~ Matt

 

[captain koolaid]

...Actually, I'll be taking a break from this board for a while, within the next week, to post some good stuff over there...like the animated-gif of Patty's toes moving up and down...and something I just recently noticed, regarding Patty's left hand.
They'll be impressed....I'm sure!

So the whole right-hand "fingers" thing, is not on the cards anymore?

 

[kitakaze]

Mexican marijuana cartels sully US forests, parks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/hockey-mom-palin-resoundi_n_133913.html

The grow sites have taken hold from the West Coast's Cascade Mountains, as well as on federal lands in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Seven hundred grow sites were discovered on U.S. Forest Service land in California alone in 2007 and 2008 _ and authorities say the 1,800-square-mile Sequoia National Forest is the hardest hit.

Rat poison has been sprinkled over the landscape to keep animals away from tender plants. And many sites are strewn with the carcasses of deer and bears poached by workers during the five-month growing season that is now ending.

Does Bigfoot get blasted by Mexican drug cartel bad-asses when he tries to blaze?

Does he keel over dead tongue hanging out a la Georgia hoax after chugging some discarded pesticide?

Does Bigfoot get reefer madness?

Will the quest for Bigfoot end by leaving the door open on an RV full of bags of sourcream and onion chips near one of these grow sites?

So many questions.

 

[Correa Neto]

Bigfeet smoke grass?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, I know how excited you will be. I had to fight the urge not to crumble like a wet cookie and go ahead and respond to your five questions post before you've done your part. You be glad to know that I have written a full response and saved it so that the moment I see the response from you I've been waiting for I can cut and paste it here lickety-split.

Patience is a virtue.

Sounds good, kitty. I should have time tomorrow night to respond to this...

1) No, you didn't. I've demonstrated your opinion is pretty worthless when it comes to Bigfoot evidence. Keep running.

2)

Originally Posted by kitakaze
That's an interesting point you raise about the worth of opinions and whose are better. I wonder, would it be fair to say that an informed opinion is better and worth more than an uninformed or poorly informed opinion? I think it may well indeed be fair to say that. I don't think we're at a loss of you demonstrating a poorly informed opinion. Is it fair to say that, Sweaty? I'm asking you a question. Will you answer it? I think I have a fine example in this thread of you tossing out a poorly informed opinion. Let's see...



3)
You, sir, have been given a clear definition of reliable evidence and how it differs from proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you were in error when saying that they are the same with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how your understanding of reliable evidence equated proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you make poorly informed opinions without fact-checking and make bold claims of evidence based on that with no meaningful rebuttal.

 

[SweatyYeti]

So the whole right-hand "fingers" thing, is not on the cards anymore?

No...nothing's changed as far as the fingers on the right hand go....they still bend.

But I've noticed something regarding Patty's left hand, which seems to indicate the fingers on that hand moved also.
I still have to check into it a little more closely, though, to be sure. (I haven't had the time to do that, in the last week, since noticing it. Note: Meanwhile, as he reads this...in a dark, dreary cellar, somewhere overseas...kitakaze is muttering to himself..."He's evading it.....I know he is!!")

 

[GT/CS]

No...nothing's changed as far as the fingers on the right hand go....they still bend.

But I've noticed something regarding Patty's left hand, which seems to indicate the fingers on that hand moved also.
I still have to check into it a little more closely, though, to be sure. (I haven't had the time to do that, in the last week, since noticing it. Note: Meanwhile, as he reads this...in a dark, dreary cellar, somewhere overseas...kitakaze is muttering to himself..."He's evading it.....I know he is!!")

Oh goody, now we get to see the wristband on the left hand!

 

[Nomada]

Slightly OT, but speaking of hair DNA...

BBC News

Scientists in the US who have examined hairs claimed to belong to a yeti in India say that in fact they belong to a species of Himalayan goat.

They say that DNA tests on the hairs - obtained from the north-east Indian state of Meghalaya - show that they are from a goat known as a Himalayan Goral..

 

[kitakaze]

Slightly OT, but speaking of hair DNA...

BBC News

I think long before those were shown to be goat hair Sweaty gave us a link on those for BF evidence.