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

[kitakaze]

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.

Opinions supported by something of substance? All right, here we go! Now you're talking. See, what I showed is that when it comes to reliable evidence of Bigfoot people like RayG and Correa Neto's opinions are supported by something of excellent substance. Namely, factual information. I also showed that your opinions are consistently poorly informed, thus the former being of more value than the latter.

You still haven't answered my questions, Sweaty. What's wrong? Are you afraid?

The 3rd one is a tall order so let's just go with the first two for now as they don't require heavy answers:

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...

You can do it, Sweaty. Cool breeze, right?

 

[tornado]

Hi gang, wondered where you went?

 

[kitakaze]

Tornado, if you have some thoughts on reliable evidence vs proof then by all means please share. Let's try to avoid any further contributions to Abandon All Hope. Thanks.

 

[kitakaze]

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...

BTW, regarding your link on the discovery of a large population of lowland gorillas - from the link:

And since there aren't any logging operations in the heart of these northern forests, Ruggiero said, roads are all but nonexistent. That, in turn, has led to low levels of poaching or subsistence hunting. Basically, there aren't many humans here, Ruggiero said.

Is this "green abyss" they described where these gorillas were found comparable to the continent spanning territory of Bigfoot (continents according to you)? Is it like Skilleyville? Putting aside the fact that we have no shortage of gorilla specimens to look at.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Huh. Apparently not.

 

[Drewbot]

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

1. You have to concede that I can't force someone to place a value on my opinion.

2. You have to concede that I can not predict what one persons valuation of my opinion would be.

3. You have to concede that any valuation placed on my opinion would vary depending on who is making the valuation.

I didn't intend any evasion, I was only trying to clarify your question. When you asked "How much is your opinion worth" I asked 'to who(m)?' I think that is critical when making estimations on value of products.

I'll ask this: How much is a new car tire worth to you?

What about if you are stuck on the side of the road with a flat tire?
In Detroit?
In front of your house?

The value of my opinion is obviously going to follow similar paths.
How much is Drew's opinion worth to you?
If you are Drew?
If you are not Drew?
If you are Drew's daughter?
If you believe Bigfoot is an Unclassified Hairy Bipedal Primate which exibits; Bipedalism, Swimming abilities, a propensity
to toss hogs, etc...?
If you believe there is not any reliable evidence of Bigfoot, therefore it is not a real creature?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Drewbot wrote:

The value of my opinion is obviously going to follow similar paths.
How much is Drew's opinion worth to you?
If you are Drew?
If you are not Drew?
If you are Drew's daughter?
If you believe Bigfoot is an Unclassified Hairy Bipedal Primate which exibits; Bipedalism, Swimming abilities, a propensity
to toss hogs, etc...?
If you believe there is not any reliable evidence of Bigfoot, therefore it is not a real creature?

Just a short response for now....but, as I said in my post last night....when it comes to discussion boards, everybody's unsupported opinions should be considered of equal value.....worthless.

It is only the substance behind an opinion which can carry any real weight...and can have real meaning, regarding the evidence for Bigfoot.

The value of your opinion to your daughter is a whole different thing, altogether. Of course, in that situation, it carries a lot of weight (hopefully!)

 

[Correa Neto]

And since the substance behind the "bigfeet are real" opinion is of very poor quality...

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Yes, I assumed that the sample's provenance can be trusted - a very dangerous assumption when it comes to cryptozoology.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Correa Neto]

one more time....

Sweaty -or any other person- may try as hard as he/she can to sell PGF as reliable evidence, but it is not.

First of all the film's original has no known, traceable chain of custody. The original material is not availble for examination. No matter how much one talks about second or first generation copies being examined - the original uncut material has never been propperly examined. This is the first -and major- blow. Even if Patty were much more realistic than what it actually is, this would be a major issue.

This could be minored if the data showed repeatbility - if other films of a similar creature, at least with the same quality (and better provenance as well) existed. Since it does not...

Now, lets check (once again) the next allegations, related to Patty itslef:

1) The alleged inability of anyone to reproduce the realism: False. There are segments of older films showing creatures as "realistic" as Patty. This is a misconception created by those who ignore the fact that FX footage from commercial movies are longer and shot at better conditions than PGF- the problems have greater odds of showing up. It is also forgotten by those who pose this claim that no actually bothered to create a good, faithfull recreation of the film. What we have are attempts to replicate items such as the alleged inhuman walk- and they were successfull.

2) Calf muscle movement on both legs and muscle movement on Patty's right thigh: Its a nothing but a perception which some people have when seeing the film. Others do not see such things. Whose opinion is correct and why?

3) Moving toes: Not demonstrated to be anything other than montion blur, for example.

4) Moving fingers on extra-long arms: Assuming the fingers actually move and its not a perspective trick and that the arms are actually longer than a humans' (both items were not succesfully demonstrated by PGF defenders), this is easilly doable in costumes with a couple of techniches. Note- "extra-long arms" is an obvious exageration and another example of footer data and information mishandling.

"indicates a high probability that Patty is simply not a suit, but instead, a real, live animal."
A real live animal, indeed. Homo sapiens wearing a bigfoot costume.

Shall we direct further PGF discussions to a propper PGF thread?

Bigfeet are still not backed by reliable evidence and are probably nothing but a modern myth.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

1) The alleged inability of anyone to reproduce the realism: False. There are segments of older films showing creatures as "realistic" as Patty.

Can you provide some links to those older films, Correa?

I'd like to make-up some animated-gifs, comparing the apparent muscle movements of Patty and "Shaggy".

This is a misconception created by those who ignore the fact that FX footage from commercial movies are longer and shot at better conditions than PGF- the problems have greater odds of showing up.

In addition to the 'problems' showing up more clearly....the alleged apparent muscle movement in those shaggy suits should ALSO be showing up more clearly.....right?? Well, let's see it!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

2) Calf muscle movement on both legs and muscle movement on Patty's right thigh: Its a nothing but a perception which some people have when seeing the film. Others do not see such things.

Whose opinion is correct and why?

The opinion that happens to be supported with something of substance is the one which carries weight.

Enter Patty's magical moving thigh padding...

Now, notice Dfoot's less-than-magical padded leg.....which has a bad case of the 'stiffies'......

If someone can re-create that movement with a heavily-padded leg, then their opinion, that that is what we're seeing with Patty, would carry some actual weight. Until that happens....that opinion is nothing more than a breath of fresh, hot air.

3) Moving toes: Not demonstrated to be anything other than montion blur, for example.

Moving toes: Not seen as anything other than 'moving toes' (real or fake), by some. Why swim against the tide??

 

[tyr_13]

The alleged apparent muscle movement shows up, but because it is more clearly depicted, it doesn't look like muscle movement. It is easily identified as bunching in clear video. Thanks for the new false assumption though Sweaty. How are those question answers coming?

 

[kitakaze]

Just a short response for now....but, as I said in my post last night....when it comes to discussion boards, everybody's unsupported opinions should be considered of equal value.....worthless.

It is only the substance behind an opinion which can carry any real weight...and can have real meaning, regarding the evidence for Bigfoot.

And again, opinions supported by facts are of much greater value than poorly informed opinions not supported by facts. If I want an opinion about what kind of winter tires are best for my car then the value of the opinion of the person who takes the time to research the facts is far higher than that of the person who has not.

If I want to know about quality evidence regarding Bigfoot then the value of the opinion of people such as RayG and Correa Neto who take the time to learn the facts and follow the sources is far higher than you, SweatyYeti, who consistently can not be bothered.

Correa Neto & RayG: Factually supported, informed, educated opinions.

SweatyYeti: Poorly informed, worthless, will-to-believe opinions.

 

[kitakaze]

The opinion that happens to be supported with something of substance is the one which carries weight.

Enter Patty's magical moving thigh padding...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Legripple111.gif[/qimg]

Now, notice Dfoot's less-than-magical padded leg.....which has a bad case of the 'stiffies'......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/stiffpadding2.gif[/qimg]

If someone can re-create that movement with a heavily-padded leg, then their opinion, that that is what we're seeing with Patty, would carry some actual weight. Until that happens....that opinion is nothing more than a breath of fresh, hot air.

Moving toes: Not seen as anything other than 'moving toes' (real or fake), by some. Why swim against the tide??

Sweaty, this thread is about reliable evidence vs proof and your confusion of them. The PGF is neither. You have never demonstrated that it is more likely to be a Bigfoot than a man in a suit but you have various venues to keep trying. This is not one.

 

[Marcus]

kitakaze wrote:



So, again, kitty....I'm not evading answering any of your questions


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.

Did I miss something? You have devoted quite a bit of time to posting since you posted this, but I can't seem to find the answers to those questions you are not evading.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks for the new false assumption though Sweaty. How are those question answers coming?

Well, it's coming kinda...

Did I miss something? You have devoted quite a bit of time to posting since you posted this, but I can't seem to find the answers to those questions you are not evading.

...like that.

Maybe Sweaty will try the excuse again of saying defending his integrity takes priority but we can see by his posts that that is not the case.

One, two days at the most, tomorrow night, and very quickly...

Not evading... yeah right.

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

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.

You appear to be considering a different definition of the word conclusion than the person you have quoted intended.

The word conclusion can mean:

1. the end or finish of an event or process : the conclusion of World War Two.

But from the context of the article it is clear that the author intends it to mean:

2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning : each research group came to a similar conclusion.
• Logic a proposition that is reached from given premises.

It is possible to reach a conclusion on the basis of reasonable evidence and in the absence of absolute proof.

I hope this helps.

 

[SweatyYeti]

You appear to be considering a different definition of the word conclusion than the person you have quoted intended.

The word conclusion can mean:

Originally Posted by Apple Dictionary
1. the end or finish of an event or process : the conclusion of World War Two.

But from the context of the article it is clear that the author intends it to mean:

Originally Posted by Apple Dictionary
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning : each research group came to a similar conclusion.
• Logic a proposition that is reached from given premises.

It is possible to reach a conclusion on the basis of reasonable evidence and in the absence of absolute proof.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the definitions, Coveredinbeeeeeeees.

I was thinking of the first definition...." the end or finish of an event or process".

As for the 2nd meaning of the word....the proper "conclusion" (a judgement or decision reached by reasoning )...to make, in the case of Bigfoot, is a judgement in terms of probability, which is the unit of measurement of 'evidence'.
There's plenty of evidence for Bigfoot's existence, so there is a certain measure of weight to it. The trick is understanding the true weight of the evidence, and "concluding", or 'judging', the likelihood of Bigfoot's existence accordingly.

It's more correct to say that Bigfoot's existence is unlikely or improbable, than it is to say it's definitely not a real animal...because, as the author of the blog said himself, Bigfoot can't be proven not to exist. If it can't be proven, then it can't be known.

So, even with the alternate meaning, it's still not right to "conclude" (make a judgement) that Bigfoot definitely does not exist anywhere in the world, without having proof of such a thing.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You have never demonstrated that it (Patty) is more likely to be a Bigfoot than a man in a suit

Hey, kitty.....how did you like that comparison of Patty and Stiffy?!

Patty's "thickly-padded" thigh is just soooooo flexible, while Dfoot's padded thigh is soooooo stiff....it could almost make a person think that Patty's leg isn't full of stiff padding.