• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

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


Yeah, I did post a link to an article about that hair evidence.

But that's the nature of 'evidence'.....it's not a sure thing. If it was, it would have been called "proof", at the time.

'Evidence for Bigfoot's existence'....even "Reliable" evidence for it's existence (according to you)....doesn't mean the evidence actually came from a real, live Bigfoot.

Again...it's all about "probabilities", until we have definitive proof.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, sweaty.

Hair strands could just be proof of bigfoot if you had a template (hair taken from a bigfoot specimen) to compare with and if the sample provenance can be taken as good. It was reliable evidence (maybe proof) for the existence of goats at the collection site, not bigfeet.

This was just another example of the poor data handling usually displayed by you and many other footers. Poor data handling will have a negative impact on the reliability of information. Good data handling is an essential part of any QA/QC program. No QA/QC no reliable data.

In this case, without having the results of the assay, you jumped and showed the hair sample as reliable evidence for bigfoot. Counting with the eggs inside the chicken is not a very smart move -especially in bigfoot's case where every single "remarkable", "definitive" or "promissing" piece evidence promissed by footers becomes just another bigfootery fumble.
 
It was reliable evidence (maybe proof) for the existence of goats at the collection site, not bigfeet.

I hope the authorities use more than these hairs to officially expand the known range of this goat. Camera traps work for all animals except the fantasy cryptids (Bigfoot, Yeti, etc.) This guy could have pulled a hoax instead of serendipitously found goral hairs.


BBC said:
It was not previously thought to roam so far south of its known habitat... The BBC was given the hairs by passionate yeti believer Dipu Marak, who retrieved them from a site in dense jungle after the mande barung was allegedly seen by a forester for three days in a row in 2003.

So, the forester sees a mande barung for three days in a row, but never saw any gorals?
 
Well, you know those forester guys and their sense of humour?!

Here's a good insight on the episode, plus some nice thoughts on evidence for Sweaty: NeuroLogica Blog


Thanks for the link, Nomada. It's a well-written article...for the most part.

Here is one excerpt from it, concerning "probabilities"...

However, lack of evidence is never definitive.
All we can say is that the more time and effort spent on looking for the mande barung without any results, the lower the probability that it is real and not just a myth.
 
Last edited:
Look!

The standard cherry-picking and quote mining!

Pick the tiny tidbits that you think may provide some support to your claim is poor reasoning, bad research, lousy methodology, etc. Something to avoid is you are actually wishing to find the real facts and to tell the truth about bigfoot.

BTW, here's a real fact about bigfoot:
There are no reliable pieces of evidence available to suport the claim "bigfeet are real".
 
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 :boxedin: to answer....and I'll put that false accusation to rest.....very quickly. :)

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4115990#post4115990

Is anyone surprised? Anyone?

I don't know about you, Sweaty, but regarding #1 on my list of Sweaty frights, if it was me and I gave a link in response to a request for reliable evidence and said that it was hair DNA sample evidence and someone quickly pointed out to me that no DNA testing was done I would waste no time in admitting my error and retracting the claim. If people kept pointing it out to me and still I did not acknowledge my poor fact-checking yet kept posting I would not be surprised at all when people laughed in my face after I told them I'm not evading anything.

#2 I can easily see how that would stick in your gullet. It basically puts you in the situation where you have to be accountable for your poorly informed opinions. To a bunch of evil skeptics? Forget about it. You asked Drew about the worth of his opinion and when he sought clarification on the question and didn't provide you with exactly the answer you were looking for you immediately accused him of evasion. Remember?:

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.
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.

Always the skeptics, huh? Wow, how does that make you look? This is dragging out quite a bit. Scoring points on skeptics isn't working out so well for you, is it?

#3 must be a serious pain because it basically calls every faceplant you've made and left hanging in this thread. Out of the three I can definitely see that one legitimately stumping you and actually taking the kind of thinking time you don't have.

So how's my "He's evading it..... I know he is" dance working out for you?;)
 
'Evidence for Bigfoot's existence'....even "Reliable" evidence for it's existence (according to you)....doesn't mean the evidence actually came from a real, live Bigfoot.
If it didn't come from a real, live bigfoot, how can it possibly be considered evidence of a real, live bigfoot?

"Hey, we've got these hairs that are evidence that bigfoot exists!"
"You've got bigfoot hairs?"
"No, they're goat hairs. But they're still evidence for bigfoot!"
 
Last edited:
If it didn't come from a real, live bigfoot, how can it possibly be considered evidence of a real, live bigfoot?

"Hey, we've got these hairs that are evidence that bigfoot exists!"
"You've got bigfoot hairs?"
"No, they're goat hairs. But they're still evidence for bigfoot!"

Arthwollipot, Sweaty will tell you that things such as sighting reports, footprints, films and videos such as the PGF and the Memorial Day footage are Bigfoot evidence until they are shown to be otherwise.

We basically spot him on this.

Sweaty is going to love your post, though, as it gives him a wonderful opportunity to quibble evidence definitions and further delay accounting for his continually lazy fact-checking and erroneous claims.
 
Thanks for the link, Nomada. It's a well-written article...for the most part.

Pray tell what part was not well written.

Here is one excerpt from it, concerning "probabilities"...

However, lack of evidence is never definitive.
All we can say is that the more time and effort spent on looking for the mande barung without any results, the lower the probability that it is real and not just a myth.

When considering the number of purported sightings of Bigfoot, their occurrence all over the North American continent, the number of reports within or proximal to human habitation, the amount of time spent looking for Bigfoot on top of the amount of time of people living and working within reported Bigfoot territory, the lack of a type specimen, the lack of reliable evidence...

What is the probability that Bigfoot is real and not just a myth?

The answer is "extremely low." So low as to make the idea of a giant bipedal primate living all across North America in numbers sufficient to sustain a breeding population and being continually seen near human habitation without a type specimen utterly absurd.

Does anyone have a different answer regarding probability?
 
I thought it was good too. What parts are inaccurate or poorly reasoned?


The main thing that I was thinking wasn't quite correct was this.....He says...

While I think the current scientific analysis strongly favors the conclusion that the mande barung is a mythical creature and not an existing species, my mind can be changed by new evidence.


He uses the word "conclusion", when there is no 'conclusion' to the mystery of Bigfoot's existence, at this point in time.
It has yet to be proven, one way or the other.

The writer admits, in the same article...


You can never prove something does not exist, as I stated above.


So, since Bigfoot can't be proven not to exist...and we don't have proof that it does exist........the only thing that can be concluded, is that Bigfoot definitely may exist, or it may not exist!

That's a definite maybe!!! ;)
 
Good reading for those who would use recent animal discovery references when making a positive argument for the probability of Bigfoot existence (as reposted by Starthinker from the cryptozoology.com forum in the cryptozoology thread):

Sorry Scott, but comparing the Giant Squid to "Bigfoot" goes beyond apples and oranges.

Giant squid bodies have been well documented since the 19th century. Over 100 carcasses have been examined by scientists. Its larval form has been captured. The animal has been photograped and filmed by expeditions setting out to do exactly that. That visual evidence is clear, with no "Blobsquids" requiring circles and arrows. The only difficulty in obtaining hard data on either the Giant or Collosal squid has been the extreme envirnoment they live in and the sheer size of the world's oceans.

Now, as to other "cryptozoological success stories", what might those be?

The Giant Panda? Well known to the Chinese, only a "cryptid" in the West, and when western scientists went looking for it, they soon came back with live specimens.The Komodo Dragon? The Mountain Gorilla? The Okapi? Again, once somebody decided to go look for it, specimens were brought back.

Or perhaps you refer to the coelacanth, which was discovered purely by chance in a fish market? There was no search, no legend to track down. To the locals they were simply a big deepwater fish they caught from time to time.

The closest thing I can think of a "cryptozoological success story" is the search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and the jury still seems to be out on that one.

Now, let's take a look at "hairy hominids" in North America. We still have no better photographic evidence than the PG film. In the centuries since European settlers first came here, we don't have a single body to show for it. In that same time, the Passenger Pigeon was driven to extinction, the mountain lion virtually exterminated over half the continent, huge herds of bison wiped out, wolves driven to the brink, grizzlies greatly reduced in habitat, and most importantly, smart, "woods-wise" populations of our own species wiped out or clinging by the barest of threads to existance.

In that time, technology has increased incredibly. We can use satellites to fix our positions accurately. Fairly cheap, readily available devices remove the shield of darkness. DNA testing allows small samples of mammoth hair stored for years at room temperature to be sequenced. One of an estimated 500 wolverines in the "Lower 48" is caught on a trail camera in California, where it wasn't thought to exist. .

But in the years since the PG film, what we mainly have is hoaxes and beef jerky commercials. There are a few bits of evidence that turn up from time to time to keep us interested, or that are hard to simply dismiss as hoaxes. Those tend to get lost in the "noise" of silliness like 4 foot long "tracks" or the stupidity of the recent events from Georgia.

And....

"However, in answer to your second point: Mountain Gorilla (unconfirmed until the beginning of the 19th century), Bili Ape AKA "Ngoloko"(2004 but known before that albeit not "scientifically" confirmed), Okapi, Vu Quag Ox, Laos Rock Rat, Komodo Dragon (1917), and Megamouth Shark (1971), to name a few I can readily recall. Most of these are larger than a bread box and are, indeed, of human size."

Mountain Gorilla ... first collected at the beginning of the 20th century. not the 19th, by essentially the first European explorer to enter their territory. No "cryptozoologists" involved. Also, gorillas in general had been known to science for over 50 years before that.

Laotian Rock Rat ... no history as a cryptid, found in a food market by someone who recognized there was something special about the little critter. In other words, pretty much the same story as the coelacanth. Note that within 10 years of the accidental discovery of the first specimen, we had video of a live one.

Okapi ... first sighted by Stanley in the 1870s (again, one of the first Western explorers to enter the territory). Specimens collected and classified in 1902. Specimen in zoo in 1918.

Vu Qang Ox ... again, well known to and hunted by the locals. No "cryptid" history. Described by zoologists shortly after their horns were brought to said zoologists attention in 1992. Not long after that, images of the living animal were published everywhere.

Komodo Dragon ... first brought to western attention in 1910. Described from a photo and skin in 1912. The first recorded expedition I could find that went to Komodo Island for the express purpose of obtaining specimens (1926) came back with 12 dead ones and 2 live ones.

Megamouth Shark ... completely unknown to science or even legend until the first one was discovered tangled in an anchor chain in 1976. Hard to be a "cryptid" when nobody even dreams you exist. Since the initial discovery, 41 specimens of what is presumed to be an extremely rare fish have been described to date.

Bili Ape ... seems to enter the literature in 1996. By 2006 DNA analysis had been done.

So, in summary, in the case of the Mountain Gorilla, Komodo Dragon, Okapi, and Bili Ape, not long after they were brought to western attention and someone went seriously looking for them, they found them. The Saola (Vu Quang Ox), Laotian Rock Rat, and Megamouth Shark were never cryptids to begin with, unless you want to claim that ANY undiscovered species is a cryptid.

In every case, no "cryptozoologists" were involved.

Now, by contrast, let's turn again to Bigfoot. How many years have people been looking for an animal which is supposedly distributed all across North America, and has been here long enough to have widespread native legends about it? 40 years? 50 years? That's a long time for little or no return, especially in contrast with your "cryptozoological success stories", which mostly involved people going to the area the reports came from, and coming back with a specimen,sometimes on the first try.

Very relevant. I would raise contention with comment about widespread native legends but the author used the qualifier "supposedly."
 
kitakaze wrote:
Does anyone have a different answer regarding probability?


Sure....for starters....the inability of anyone to reproduce the realism (the apparent calf muscle movement on both legs, the apparent muscle movement on Patty's right thigh, the moving toes, the moving fingers on extra-long arms) of Patty indicates a high probability that Patty is simply not a suit, but instead, a real, live animal.

(Not to worry, folks....Dfoot is working on this problem....and is inching ever closer to his repro-suit, as we speak...................I'm sure! :D )


Secondly, the planet is a HUGE place...there's still room on it for an "undiscovered" species, or two....or, perhaps even a very large population of very large animals....:)...

"We have found the mother lode of western lowland gorillas (125,000)," said Steven Sanderson, president of the society, which led the research. "We had no idea that these great densities, that is numbers per square kilometer [of the gorillas], were possible in central Congo."


Link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93254830


Gee, they never would have guessed...
 
The main thing that I was thinking wasn't quite correct was this.....He says...




He uses the word "conclusion", when there is no 'conclusion' to the mystery of Bigfoot's existence, at this point in time.
It has yet to be proven, one way or the other.

The writer admits, in the same article...





So, since Bigfoot can't be proven not to exist...and we don't have proof that it does exist........the only thing that can be concluded, is that Bigfoot definitely may exist, or it may not exist!

That's a definite maybe!!! ;)

Sweaty why do you incessantly try to spin the fact that we can not definitively say Bigfoot does not exist as equivocating a significant probability for its existence?

The current body of data indicates an extremely low probability. It favours the conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist. New data has the ability to change this condition. Just as that author stated his opinion that "the current scientific analysis strongly favors the conclusion that the mande barung is a mythical creature and not an existing species, my mind can be changed by new evidence."

The author's statement was quite accurate in reflecting the reality of the situation.

For rational, reasonable people after having examined the current body of evidence regarding Bigfoot to say they've concluded Bigfoot as being mythical but could change that position pending further evidence is completely fair.

If someone didn't use a "most likely" when they say "Bigfoot is crap to me until something better is put forward" the difference is academic.
 
kitakaze wrote:



Sure....for starters....the inability of anyone to reproduce the realism (the apparent calf muscle movement on both legs, the apparent muscle movement on Patty's right thigh, the moving toes, the moving fingers on extra-long arms) of Patty indicates a high probability that Patty is simply not a suit, but instead, a real, live animal.

(Not to worry, folks....Dfoot is working on this problem....and is inching ever closer to his repro-suit, as we speak...................I'm sure! :D )

4032nd attempt to slip subjective opinion by as fact disqualified.

Secondly, the planet is a HUGE place...there's still room on it for an "undiscovered" species, or two....or, perhaps even a very large population of very large animals....:)...




Link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93254830


Gee, they never would have guessed...

"Remote" argument a logical failure. It is not a matter of if there is enough space to hide a limited population of Bigfoots in the world. We must address what Bigfoot enthusiasts such as yourself are presenting us with. Your forum mates such as Driveroperator, darkwing, and Bullet Maker over at the MABRC are claiming repeated contact with Bigfoot near human civilization.

I don't need to worry about if Bigfoot has enough space to hide when I can go to Skilleyville, whirl a kid's toy noisemaker, and be surrounded by an ambush of four Bigfoots.

Dealing with your poor arguments is a cool breeze, Sweaty. Can you please try harder?
 
Last edited:
kitakaze wrote:
You asked Drew about the worth of his opinion and when he sought clarification on the question and didn't provide you with exactly the answer you were looking for you immediately accused him of evasion. Remember?:


He sure did evade giving a simple, straight-forward answer....despite his taking time to respond to the question.


As far as the value of people's opinions go....this is the way I look at it.
As I stated in an earlier post...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Out of millions of potential opinions expressed about Bigfoot...are we going to argue over who's got the "best" one?? :boggled:


The point of my post, from which that statement came, was that.....as a basic "ground rule" of a discussion board....we shouldn't get into debating and arguing over who's 'unsupported opinion' is worth more than anyone else's unsupported opinion.

Simply because there are too many members of discussion boards, which are open to everybody across the globe, to get into something which can ONLY serve to waste people's valuable time....arguing over who's opinion is 'better'. (As you are trying to do.)

There's a common phrase, regarding opinions...."my 2-cents worth". There's a reason why people commonly refer to their opinion as near-worthless. It's because opinions, without being supported by something of substance....are nothing but 'hot air'.

It's the substance (and only the substance) behind an opinion which actually carries any weight.

To be continued.....'tis late. :)
 
Last edited:
kitakaze wrote:
It favours the conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist


A conclusion without a 'definite', is not really much of a conclusion....is it?

Again....all we have is a definite maybe! :)
 
A conclusion without a 'definite', is not really much of a conclusion....is it?

Again....all we have is a definite maybe! :)

Wrong. The conclusion is a definition for a functional perspective regarding the question of Bigfoot's existence.

All we have is not a definite maybe and stop trying to fluff the case for Bigfoot, you suck at it. What we do have is the fact that current evidence for Bigfoot indicates an extremely low probability of it existing. This is not subjective opinion, this is reality. Bigfoot as described by Bigfoot enthusiasts is absurd.
 

Back
Top Bottom