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

[kitakaze]

kitakaze obsesses some more.

"Observes", Sweaty. The factually correct word would be "observes."

Once again, can you please explain how my answer to your objective question with "I don't think so" is a non-answer and an evasion but your answer to an objective question with "in my opinion" and "I consider" is acceptable?

Sure will, a little later today.

Based upon your behaviour in this thread I highly doubt that.

I'll also respond to this false accusation, later...

You haven't shown my observations of your behaviour in this thread to be false. By all means please try.

I don't think I'll have time to get into that. I have explained why I think those are strong evidences for Bigfoot's existence before, though.

Would that qualify as a refusal then? You don't have time to answer questions central to the subject of the thread? Ah, but see, again we have an example of Sweaty hypocrisy. You implied that Correa wouldn't back up his arguments when he told you to use the search feature to get the images you were looking for that he had posted many times. I see again it's OK as long as it's you.

I'm going to get back to posting on the Mid-America board, and I'm joining NESRA today or tomorrow......so I won't be spending/wasting much of my time here, anymore.

That should be fun for you. I can understand how going back to fantasy land and getting pats on the back for playing with crayons would be more appealing then consistently getting your weak arguments, bad logic, and dishonest tactics powned here. Regards to Lummi.

I have no problem answering anybody's questions...

Not according to this thread. I think 4 pages of repeated requests to get what turned out to be a 17 word answer qualifies as a problem answering questions.

 

[kitakaze]

C'mon Sweaty, I'm dumber than a box of bricks, you'll have to point them out specifically. I see you twisting, squirming, and side-stepping at a frantic pace, but nothing in the way of facts. (You know, those pesky things you keep ignoring). Can you demonstrate that any of these supposed 'false' accusations are indeed false?

It's OK, Ray. Apparently I'm an ass but I think I can help. I'm quite sure Sweaty is referring to this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4115669#post4115669

That's the one containing the following statement by Sweaty that turned out to be quite false:

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.

Apparently judging by the time it took to get Sweaty's 17 word answer for my #1 question in that magical alien and Bigfoot filled reality where Sweaty lives one of his days is equal to roughly five of ours.

 

[RayG]

C'mon Sweaty, I'm dumber than a box of bricks...

It's OK, Ray. Apparently I'm an ass but I think I can help.

A quick photo of kitakaze (ass) and RayG (box of bricks), but still no reliable evidence for bigfoot.



RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Since Sweaty is apparently refusing to elaborate for us in this thread how Joyce and the PGF qualify as very strong evidence for Bigfoot I will take the liberty of repeating what Sweaty has said on the subject.

Regarding the PGF according to Swaty the PGF is strong evidence for Bigfoot because no one's been able to reproduce the realism of the subject.

What's wrong with that argument? Hints are in the words "able" and "realism."

Regarding Joyce, in Sweaty's own words:

If Joyce and her daughter saw anything....they saw a Bigfoot.
Given the conditions of the sighting (report)....there is a 0% chance (degree of probability) that they were watching a bear walk away from them through an open cow pasture.

Bonus Information....no charge.......
Joyce told me that the creature looked back at them twice as it walked away. They had MUCH more than a fleeting glimpse of the thing.

If Joyce saw anything she saw a Bigfoot. When asked how Sweaty ruled out the possibility of hoax he replied that the possibility that she and her daughter could have been fooled by a suit was highly improbable.

Starting at page #283 of the 411 PGF thread we have a lengthy discussion of Joyce's tale in which we put the idea of the story being strong evidence to bed. Check it out:

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=42523&page=283

 

[Correa Neto]

I was at the "Mass Monster Mash" conference in Watertown, last Saturday night, and saw Loren's presentation, which was mainly about the "Mothman".

One of the slides in his presentation showed an image of a possible mundane explanation for the mothman sighting reports....an owl with it's wings spread out above it's head, and along it's sides.

He presented viewpoints from both sides of the matter.

So Sweaty, he presented bot sides of the matter... OK. And he decided for? Never mind, all it takes is to look a Cryptmundo and the many posts linking mothman to Fortenana an bridge collapses...

Hey, BTW, how's chupacabra doing these days?

It was a great conference though....I got to meet, and talk with, Loren.

Have you used the opportunity and asked him about the reasons for his enthusiasm regarding the Georgia hoax?

Sorry Sweaty, Coleman is OK when it comes to gathering anecdotes - nice source for campfire tales and RPG. But that's all. His article on paranthropus x gigantopithecus has a huge credibility issue and fails to provide support to any footer viewpoint, since it is mainly composed by nothing but empty speculations.

I also met someone from the NESRA group, who, coincidentally, was in Whitehall NY the same weekend I was, about a month ago. Dave and I talked for quite a while...and he told me that he's talked with several people in Whitehall, who say either they've seen Bigfoot, or know of someone who's seen one (in that area).

More anectodal data. So what? Am I supposed to consider this can give any more credence to your bigfoot-related claims?

Talked to people who claimed to see UFOs and had contact with aliens. Talked to people who claimed to have seen ghosts. Talked to people who claim to have found Jesus. Talked to people who claimed to be able to channel the dead. I have absolutely no reason to believe in them, for they can't provide any reliable evidence to back their claims.

"It is undesirable to believe a proposal when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
I don't think I'll have time to get into that. I have explained why I think those are strong evidences for Bigfoot's existence before, though.

Would that qualify as a refusal then?

No, I wasn't absolutely refusing to answer your question, kitty....I was declining to, since I have already explained my thoughts, regarding both of those points....and on more than one occasion, to boot.

But, if you can be patient...I will answer that question, one more time.


Here again is what I wrote, the other day...

I'm going to get back to posting on the Mid-America board, and I'm joining NESRA today or tomorrow......so I won't be spending/wasting much of my time here, anymore.
But I will respond to that third question of yours, kitty...and whatever else it is that you're falsely accusing me of evading.

I have no problem answering anybody's questions...but I simply don't have enough time available to me to respond to all the questions...plus the misrepresentations and accusations against me.

So, as far as previously-asked questions (from anybody) which I have not answered, go....I'll be happy to answer them.

But I'm not going to get into new debates, and answer a bunch of new questions....unless the person asking the questions agrees to be VERY patient waiting for replies, and doesn't mischaracterize my slow replies as an 'evasion' of a question.

In other words, my posting here will be a VERY LOW priority of mine....'bottom of the barrel' priority, in fact.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

His article on paranthropus x gigantopithecus has a huge credibility issue and fails to provide support to any footer viewpoint, since it is mainly composed by nothing but empty speculations.

Hey...ain't nuthin' emptier than the "Bigfoot's ancester's were Bears" theory...is there?!

Yup...as MT as MT ever gets!
At least Giganto and Paranthy fit the very basic (common) descriptions of Bigfoot....i.e....Primate.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, Sweaty, there are emptier things indeed...

Want an example? A basket of reliable evidences backing the claim "bigfeet are real". Very empty. Vacuum, maybe. Perhaps a good start for a zero-point energy experiment...

Want another one?
The tactics of distorting the arguments you can't beat...

One more? A box with rebuttals for the points below:

-The absence of a known chain of custody and the fact that the originals are not available for examinations render PGF as an unreliable piece of evidence.

-There are no available reliable pieces of evidences to back the claim "bigfeet are real". Due to this absence of evidence, bigfootery is regarded as a fringe subject. Its not skeptics's fault that the evidence, methodology and reasonings used to back bigfeet as real animals are flawed.

-Whose perceptions of the film (real animal x ape suit) are more correct and what are the criteria used to answer this question? Note that this is a cognition issue and its quite deep and broad.

-How you can be completely sure, without a specimen or DNA, that bigfeet (if they exist) are primates based only on shaky evidence such as eyewitnesses reports and PGF? Show us how you can fully discount the possibility that these animals are a product of evolutionary convergence. How Mrs. Mudwumple - or Joyce - would describe flipper? Or a Thylacosmilus, or a tasmanian tiger? Has she ever heard about chalicotheres?

Another empty thing- the place where there should be a thread comparing Patty with other costumes.

One more- the place where any woo should place something good enough to counter this:
"It is undesirable to believe a proposal when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

there are emptier things indeed...

Want an example? A basket of reliable evidences backing the claim "bigfeet are real". Very empty. Vacuum, maybe.

Correa...you compared baskets of apples with baskets of oranges.
A comparison of apples with apples would actually be a meaningful comparison.

The basket, in my post, was:

ain't nuthin' emptier than the "Bigfoot's ancester's were Bears" theory

And in an earlier post I had said this:

I'm laughing at ... RayG's proposal, which nobody on this forum can support with anything of substance.

I was refering to ANY evidence whatsoever....from very weak to very strong....that Bigfoot descended from, and is part of, the Bear family".
Of such......there AIN'T NOTHIN....at all....whatsoever...in the least.


In your basket....we have...

A basket of reliable evidences backing the claim "bigfeet are real". Very empty. Vacuum, maybe

You limited your "basket" comparison to 'very strong' (reliable) evidence.....and in doing so, you admit to the fact that there is, indeed, some evidence for Bigfoot's existence.

The main point is...you didn't compare the same things.

Perhaps a good start for a zero-point energy experiment...

The "Bigfoot via Bear" theory is a great start for some laughter.

How about The Three Stooges......

Moe: How can there be a Bear down there?!"

Curly: "It's Bearly possible" ...

"To the Pump...to the pump...to the pump...pump...pump..."

 

[Correa Neto]

You can try to evade and distort, but you can not hide...

Sweaty, please explain us how you can be completely sure, without a specimen or DNA, that bigfeet (if they exist) are primates based only on shaky evidence such as eyewitnesses reports and PGF. Show us how you can fully discount the possibility that these animals are a product of evolutionary convergence.

So far, from your evasion and obfuscation attempts, not to mention distortion and quote mining from what other posters wrote, it seems you can not.

Its also clear that you can not counter the following:

-The basket of reliable pieces of evidences which could be used to back the claim "bigfeet are real" is empty. Due to this absence of evidence, bigfootery is regarded as a fringe subject. Its not skeptics's fault that the evidence, methodology and reasonings used to back bigfeet as real animals are flawed.

-The absence of a known chain of custody and the fact that the originals are not available for examinations render PGF as an unreliable piece of evidence.

You also have failed so far to provide an answer to this:

-Whose perceptions of the film (real animal x ape suit) are more correct and what are the criteria used to answer this question? Note that this is a cognition issue and its quite deep and broad.

At last, but not least,
"It is undesirable to believe a proposal when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Sweaty, please explain us how you can be completely sure, without a specimen or DNA, that bigfeet (if they exist) are primates based only on shaky evidence such as eyewitnesses reports and PGF.

Show us how you can fully discount the possibility that these animals are a product of evolutionary convergence.

Correa....if someone aims a make-believe rifle at you, and starts making gun noises....what do you need to do, to defend yourself against it???

Answer.....NOTHING at all...except to laugh at it, perhaps.

 

[Floyd312]

I had to de-lurk because I am really amazed at how SweatyYeti continues to misrepresent the following as though he thinks we don't notice.

"What other possible family of animals could leave human-looking footprints with 5 toes, in your opinion, other than Primates?"

RayG gave bears as an example of an animal that could leave such tracks.

SweatyYeti continues to misrepresent this with statements such as:

The "Bigfoot via Bear" theory is a great start for some laughter.

There is no "Bigfoot via Bear" theory. The original question and RayG's response was not about bigfoot; it was about footprints.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Floyd312 wrote:

There is no "Bigfoot via Bear" theory. The original question and RayG's response was not about bigfoot; it was about footprints.

Wrong, Floyd.

Maybe you didn't look far enough back in the BFF thread...but my ORIGINAL statement , which the footprint question was asked in direct relation to, (as just one example of a characteristic Primate/Humanlike trait of Bigfoot)....was...

"Bigfoot....if real.... IS a Primate." [/QUOTE]



You....and kitakaze....have misrepresented the whole point/meaning/purpose of my question to Ray.

On the BFF, Ray objected to that original statement of mine, and suggested/proposed the idea that Bigfoot, IF IT DOES EXIST, may NOT be a Primate, but may belong to a completely different group/family of animal.

Contrary to kitakaze's false accusation.....the goalposts have NOT been moved.
They are at exactly the same place they started at.

And RayG.....is still on the run from his own suggestion.

 

[RayG]

I had to de-lurk because I am really amazed at how SweatyYeti continues to misrepresent the following as though he thinks we don't notice.

Post #144 of this thread points out how Sweaty likes to duck 'n dodge, bob 'n weave. He likes to think he's landing some knockout punches, when, in fact, he's flailing away, much like Don Knotts might do against Kimbo Slice.

Flail away Sweaty, flail away.

RayG

 

[Cavemonster]

Characterization of this thread:
SY: If there is a Flying Spaggetti Monster, there is no doubt that he is made of vermicelli.

R: For all the evidence there is of a FSM, (which is none) He could just as easily be made of linguini.

SY: Do you hear this guy! I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life! A FSM made out of linguini? C'mon!

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:



Correa....if someone aims a make-believe rifle at you, and starts making gun noises....what do you need to do, to defend yourself against it???

Answer.....NOTHING at all...except to laugh at it, perhaps.

You mean like when people aim at us a make-believe rifle loaded with a North American (or even global) mythical giant hairy humanoid biped? Or a make-believe rifle loaded with crappy evidence and flawed reasonings? And later starts to complain when the rounds make no effect?

Well, in case you haven't noticed, many people here are just laughing at those who keep doing this...

Once again your evasion and obfuscation attempts failed to hide the fact that so far you have not been able to counter any of the below (not to mention the many others questions we previously placed over the table):

-There are no reliable pieces of evidences presently available which could be used to back the claim "bigfeet are real".

-The absence of a known chain of custody and the fact that the originals are not available for examinations render PGF as an unreliable piece of evidence.

-One can not be completely sure, without a specimen or DNA, that bigfeet (if they exist) are primates based only on shaky evidence such as eyewitnesses reports and crappy imagery. A specimen or DNA are needed. Show us how you can fully discount the possibility that these animals -if real- are a product of evolutionary convergence.

At last, but not least,
"It is undesirable to believe a proposal when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell
Try countering this...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

One can not be completely sure, without a specimen or DNA, that bigfeet (if they exist) are primates based only on shaky evidence such as eyewitnesses reports and crappy imagery. A specimen or DNA are needed.

Show us how you can fully discount the possibility that these animals -if real- are a product of evolutionary convergence.

And:

At last, but not least,
"It is undesirable to believe a proposal when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell
Try countering this...

That's a great statement, Correa. Thank you for posting it.

Applying it to the "Bigfoot via Bear/Dog Family" proposal....as there is not one ounce, or shred of evidence (living or dead) indicating any intermediate form between Bear/Dogs and an Ape/Human being (of which there should be many)....there are thusly "no grounds whatever for supposing it true".

Anybody giving that idea any weight whatsoever does so only on a will-to-believe, and not on reason...or intellect.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, Sweaty, at last you noticed it! Why it took you so long? And I'm happy to see you like it and seem to agree with it. Now, shall we see how Russell's quote apply to bigfootery?

First, the big picture. Here's Russel's original statement:

It is undesirable to believe a proposal when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it true.

Good grounds would be reliable pieces of evidence and/or proof. Got some? No. Then we must say...

It is undesirable to believe bigfeet are real when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it is true.(*)

Now, let's check the issue you seem to hope that will draw people's attention from the real issue, the big picture, the bigbearfoot (**)...

It seems you are failing to acknoweledge that what's actually at stake is the very quality of the evidence you folks show us. What are you presenting to back your claim that bigfeet must be primates? Unreliable evidences (eyewitenesses reports and a film highly suspected of being a fraud). No "good grounds" here, Sweaty. Show us how you can fully discount the possibility that these animals -if real- are a product of evolutionary convergence. The propper classification of a species requires a specimen and/or DNA. Got some? Actually, since presently there is not a single piece of good evidence to back bigfeet as real creatures, we will be back to...

"It is undesirable to believe bigfeet are real when there is no good grounds whatever for supposing it is true."(*)

You are sailing (better say sinking) in the same boat where Historian, Beckjord, Mary Gree, the pigfoot guy and Tianca (as well as many others) are. Some bigfoot myth versions are wilder than others, but the bottomline is that there are no reliable pieces of evidence to back any of them, regardless if you are defending earthly flesh-and-blood primates unknown to science or aliens who abduct human females for reproduction.

(*)Yes, you may entertain the though or the hope of them being real.

(**) Here are some of those issues again, your evasions and diversions won't make them go away (at least not here):
-First of all, there are no reliable pieces of evidences presently available which could be used to back the claim "bigfeet are real" and the methodology and reasonings used by footers to support their claims quite often have big flaws and gapping holes. All other issues pale when faced with this one.

-The absence of a known chain of custody and the fact that the originals are not available for examinations render PGF (taken by many footers as the pièce de résistance when it comes o bigfoot evidence) an unreliable piece of evidence.

 

[Drewbot]

Why is the bear/bigfoot thing even a point of contention for Sweaty?

Bear misidentification is just one of a number of reasons that people report bigfoot sightings. And as of yet, there are no (zero) sightings which can be shown conclusively to be sightings of an Unclassified, Hairy, Bipedal Primate, with a godawful Stank!

I think it is much more likely, based on the evidence available, that any number of sightings were bears rather than the Big Hairy himself.

So I don't see what your criticism of Ray is leading to, it seems like you are riding a dead horse on this one Sweaty.

 

[Correa Neto]

Simple.

Since the absence of reliable evidence to back his claims was clearly demonstrated, all he can do is to stick to the distortion of arguments, in the futile hope that the weaknesses of his positions will pass unperceived.

And it seems he's been using this tactics for a looooooong time.