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

[captain koolaid]

They may register equally on your 'silly meter', Drew......but there is a huge difference between the two, as far as evidence goes.

"Bear/Apeman" theory.....Zippo evidence. (That's, not a shred.....nuttin'....zilcho-o-roni....the big ZERO....total vacuum....etc.)

"Bigfoot Primate" theory....Lots and Lots and Lots of evidence.

See the difference?

There isn't any "evidence". Only campfire yarns, anecdotes and hoaxes.

 

[kitakaze]

They may register equally on your 'silly meter', Drew......but there is a huge difference between the two, as far as evidence goes.

"Bear/Apeman" theory.....Zippo evidence. (That's, not a shred.....nuttin'....zilcho-o-roni....the big ZERO....total vacuum....etc.)

I don't see a serious proposal for a bear/apeman theory. I see an analogy meant to demonstrate the lack of reliable evidence regarding Bigfoot. See, check this out:

"Bigfoot Primate" theory....Lots and Lots and Lots of evidence.

Did you just make a logical fallacy? Quantity over quality? A 3052nd invitation to weak coffee? Here we come to the crux of the issue, Sweaty. I will spot you that the stories, plaster casts, crappy videos, etc can qualify as evidence. All of it is very poor quality. None of it presents any major difficulty in attributing to a source other than an unclassified species of giant bipedal North American primate. Worse, much of that evidence points to traits that are uncharacteristic of primates or highly irregular. If you truly think the PGF or Joyce qualifies then please explain.

Sweaty, it seems that I'm having a difficult time getting you to address that evidence. I think it identifies a fundamental issue regarding Bigfoot claims. I would like to know what you have to say about it.

See the difference?

Yes, one is an analogy and the other is a claim with the same kind of backing as E.T. visitation, chupacabra, ghosts, Martian civilizations, here comes Jesus, etc.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty, I would appreciate if you could answer my question why my giving a response with "I don't think so" to an objective question is a non-answer and an evasion but your response to an objective question with "in my opinion" and "I consider" is acceptable.

I should have time to do that later tonight.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:



Actually, Correa...what ain't gonna "make it" is your "Bigfoot via Bear, by way of Tasmania" proposal.

I guess the lack of any, and all, of the hundreds of living or fossilized transitional forms between Bear and Apeman has forced your "Magical Mystery Theory" ride to take that little detour.

Let's see........where to next.........I know, maybe we can hop on the Polar Express and visit the North Pole, to see the Polar Bears!! Perhaps they'll have a clue as to where we can find some (or at least one) of those missing species.....obviously you don't!

Still not finding the part where you are supposed to expose us how you can be certain, absolutely sure, without a specimen or DNA that bigfeet -if real- can only be a primate. Smileys won't cut it.

You can't even demonstrate its not a just a myth...

That reasoning applied towards one, or even a few, missing species is very different than if it was applied to a WHOLE, COMPLETE, missing group of creatures which spans the entire '100 million+ year' gap between Bears and an Ape/Man type creature.

Nope.
You know, the species may have evolved at some isolated remote PNW corner, small numbers, low preservation odds, no fossil beds of the right age. Not all species are preserved at the fossil record... Got all the transitional forms for the Tasmanian tiger?

BTW, I would also like to see how you came to the "100+ my" figure.

Sweaty, you should really stop making claims based on nothing but thin hot air... Good data handling involves not extrapolating beyond what your data set allows you to. You -and many other footers- have a strong tendency to over extrapolate. Distorting your opponent's arguments, as in the bigbearfoot/marsupialfoot case, will not move the spotlights from the real issues- the poor data handling ehxibited and the absence of reliable evidence. On the contrary, they are becoming more evident.

But you know something, you can be 100% certain its a primate. Since they are nothing but a figment of imagination, you can be 100% sure of the genus and species in your own version of the myth. Just like Tianca can be 100% sure they are aliens who abduct women...

Whoops, almost forgot! Here are some other issues which so far you have not countered...

- 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.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Looking forward to it.

Hang in there....I'll respond to that tonight, for sure!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Good data handling involves not extrapolating beyond what your data set allows you to.

That makes sense.

Is there any data which indicates that any transitional forms between Bear/Doggie and bipedal Ape/Man-looking creatures have ever existed?

Are there any (of these particular) 'transitional forms' alive today....that we know of?


Also....if Bigfoot is a real creature....could it possibly be a member of the Squirrel family?
(Maybe someday, if it's ever proven to exist, it'll be given the name 'Rodentia Who-du-thunk-it-tia!' )


Note:
These simple 'yes' or 'no' questions are designed to demonstrate that there is a serious (and total) lack of evidence for any other potential 'family groups' (other than Primate) which Bigfoot, as it's commonly described, could actually...in reality...belong to.

Correa will have trouble answering them with either a direct 'yes' or a 'no'.

Still not finding the part where you are supposed to expose us how you can be certain, absolutely sure, without a specimen or DNA that bigfeet -if real- can only be a primate.

I can be certain that Bigfoot, if it's real, is a Primate......you are the one who cannot be, Correa.
But that's your problem, not mine......you can't see the obvious.

 

[Drewbot]

To answer your question

"Bear/Apeman" theory.....Zippo evidence. (That's, not a shred.....nuttin'....zilcho-o-roni....the big ZERO....total vacuum....etc.)

"Bigfoot Primate" theory....Lots and Lots and Lots of evidence.

See the difference?

While Kit thinks there is a difference between the two, I think that this is a perfect example of the absurdity of the Bigfoot argument.

Here we have two theories, neither one backed by any semblance of reliable evidence, one theory, the Bear/Apeman Theory was completely fabricated with it's sole intent to expose the absurdity of the Bigfoot/primate claim, the other being the Bigfoot/Primate theory which, having the same amount of reliable evidence to support it as the Bear/Apeman Theory, is supported vigorously by some.

There is no more reliable evidence to support the argument that Bigfoot exists, let alone, to support whether Bigfoot is a primate, than there is of: The Loch Ness Monster existing, Bigfoot being an alien/dimensional traveller, UFO's kidnapping people, ancient pyramids on Mars, Bigfoot being a Man/Bear/Ape, and the existence of Lycanthropes.

So my answer to your question is 'NO' I don't see a difference.

 

[Correa Neto]

As expected, you have not provided any explanations about how you can be certain, absolutely sure, without a specimen or DNA that bigfeet -if real- can only be a primate. Your distortion of arguments has not made the following issues go away:

- 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.

Oh, and how you managed to reach the 100+my figure?

But let's play. OK, momma always said I should not play with my food, but its funny.

Is there any data which indicates that any transitional forms between Bear/Doggie and bipedal Ape/Man-looking creatures have ever existed?
Are there any (of these particular) 'transitional forms' alive today....that we know of?

Have you turned in to a creationist or its just a demonstration of your poor understanding of evolution and cladistics? What's next? You will ask for transitional forms between crocodiles and chickens?

Let me guess... A complaint against not responding with a simple "yes" or "no"...

Do you have any reliable evidence that bigfeet exist and are primates?
Yes or no?

Sweaty, you don't even have reliable data to back the existence of the species! How can you be completely sure there's no possibility, none at all,of it being something other than a primate without a specimen or DNA? Again, you should really stop making claims based on nothing but thin hot air... Good data handling involves not extrapolating beyond what your data set allows you to. You -and many other footers- have a strong tendency to over extrapolate. Remember, possibility, not plausibility and no mention (yet) to qualitative levels of possibility and plausibility.

And once again, since we are talking about are nothing but a figment of imagination, you can be 100% sure of the genus and species in your own version of the myth. Just like Tianca can be 100% sure they are aliens who abduct women...

Also....if Bigfoot is a real creature....could it possibly be a member of the Squirrel family?
(Maybe someday, if it's ever proven to exist, it'll be given the name 'Rodentia Who-du-thunk-it-tia!'

Also....if Bigfoot is a real creature....could it possibly be an alien from outer space?
(Maybe someday, if it's ever proven to exist, it'll be shown to be an unearthly creature with the name 'Wookie!'

Who knows which cryptids may be hiding at your backyard eating beans from cans and stealing screwdrivers? Who knows how many branches from the tree of life were not discovered yet or will never be because they were not preserved in the fossil register?

All hail cut-and-paste, the ideal tool to answer SweatyYeti!

 

[Drewbot]

Ha. Someone put the Panda Bear over there by the Raccoons. Ha.

 

[JcR]

I think I will upload some of my own DNA.
If you people find anything, even remotely suspicious...
don't waste anytime emailing back a good size bullet.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty, I would appreciate if you could answer my question why my giving a response with "I don't think so" to an objective question is a non-answer and an evasion but your response to an objective question with "in my opinion" and "I consider" is acceptable.

I should have time to do that later tonight.

Looking forward to it.

Hang in there....I'll respond to that tonight, for sure!

Looking forward to it.

 

[kitakaze]

Question:

If all of the 'Bigfoot evidence' in North America has been a product of 'hoaxes, misidentifications, and delusions'.....would that mean that Bigfoot does not exist in North America??

No, it simply means that theres no evidenciary support for the premise- nothing more.

It doesnt help the premise obviously but lack of evidence doesnt prove a negative.

"Yes" or "no" question, Sweaty. Do you agree with Longtabber's answer?

 

[kitakaze]

I can be certain that Bigfoot, if it's real, is a Primate......you are the one who cannot be, Correa.
But that's your problem, not mine......you can't see the obvious.

You are certain. Once again I must ask you to address the many cases of track evidence showing an apparent animal with other than the appropriate number of digits for a primate. As I already said:

I certainly agree with you that the traditional description of Bigfoot is an apeman-type figure. Alleged witnesses will often describe something eerily human-like in appearance while others describe something very ape-like. Some refer to Bigfoot speaking an unintelligible language. Your friends at the MABRC are an example of this. Going by the anecdotal evidence what am I to make of Bigfoot? What the heck is it? How do I decided which report is appropriately Bigfoot? How do I make sure I'm not having filtration issues. Would you like me to point you to Bigfoot reports with multiple witness with multiple Bigfoots talking to eachother?

I can't help but notice as you pursue this topic that you have not responded to repeated requests to address the issues I am presenting you on the matter. Now, Sweaty, I have a very important question which I will put in bold after the following quote of yours to emphasize its importance to the topic you discussing:

For example...as for the plausibility of Bigfoot being a real animal, descended directly from the Bear family...this is what I truly think of that proposal...


It is a silly idea.

It's completely silly.

It's ridiculously silly.

It's laughably silly.

Silly as silly EVER gets...buddy.

"Yes" or "no" question -

Is the idea of alien paranormal Bigfoots completely, ridiculously, laughably silly?

Please answer "yes" or "no" with an explanation of why you think so if you don't mind.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Question:

If all of the 'Bigfoot evidence' in North America has been a product of 'hoaxes, misidentifications, and delusions'.....would that mean that Bigfoot does not exist in North America??

NO, it simply means that there's no evidenciary support for the premise- nothing more.

It doesn't help the premise obviously but lack of evidence doesnt prove a negative.

"Yes" or "no" question, Sweaty. Do you agree with Longtabber's answer?

Yes....I agree with the first part of his answer... the "No" part.

"No" is technically correct...in that a "total lack of evidence" doesn't prove "non-existence"...but it's not correct in a practical sense, because of something called "probability"...."odds".

As a result....I don't agree with the 2nd part of his answer....his explanation...

it simply means that there's no evidenciary support for the premise- nothing more.

A 'total lack of evidence' for a living population of Bigfoot would mean much more than just "there's no evidenciary support for the premise"....it would mean that the probability of their existence would be right next to zero.

The odds of a population of Bigfoot living in N.A., without ever leaving a footprint behind, and without ever being seen, heard, or filmed, would be approximately 1 in billions...against. Effectively zero.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Is the idea of alien paranormal Bigfoots completely, ridiculously, laughably silly?

Yes.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You are certain. Once again I must ask you to address the many cases of track evidence showing an apparent animal with other than the appropriate number of digits for a primate.

Several days ago I said I wasn't going to get into any more new discussions here, because I want to start posting again on the Mid-America board.
So I'm not getting into discussing "4-toed" footprints...which may or may not belong to a Bigfoot-type creature.

I'll finish responding to some of your older questions, kitty....and some questions from other people, and then I'm moving on.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Let me guess... A complaint against not responding with a simple "yes" or "no"...

No...I'm not complaining. I'm laughing.

Just as I expected, and predicted....

Correa will have trouble answering them with either a direct 'yes' or a 'no'.

Yup....questions like these are so difficult to answer, aren't they?...

Is there any data which indicates that any transitional forms between Bear/Doggie and bipedal Ape/Man-looking creatures have ever existed?

Are there any (of these particular) 'transitional forms' alive today....that we know of?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

What's next? You will ask for transitional forms between crocodiles and chickens?

Sure, if someone says that there's a chance that chickens descended from crocs, then I'll be happy to ask them for examples of transitional forms!

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Is the idea of alien paranormal Bigfoots completely, ridiculously, laughably silly?

Yes.

Why is that so silly? You believe in extraterrestrial visitation to Earth. You believe in Martian civilizations. You believe in a possible connection between that civilization and sites on Earth such as Avebury, England.

If you believe in such things then why is an alien connection to Bigfoot so silly? People have reported Bigfoots in connection to UFO sightings. Many witnesses such as your friends at MABRC have reported Bigfoot talking and engaging in behaviour not fitting just a regular animal. How can you be so confident to pronounce the idea silly? The same evidence that you bring to us for your ideas about Bigfoots and aliens can be used for the alien Bigfoot theory.

Please explain why it's so laughably silly. I predict that you'll make an excuse why you won't do that. Wouldn't want to face the weakness of your position. It's a Sweaty world.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:



Several days ago I said I wasn't going to get into any more new discussions here, because I want to start posting again on the Mid-America board.
So I'm not getting into discussing "4-toed" footprints...which may or may not belong to a Bigfoot-type creature.

I'll finish responding to some of your older questions, kitty....and some questions from other people, and then I'm moving on.

It's not a new discussion. It deals with the heart of your Bigfoot/primate/something else discussion. I've been after you for a while to deal with the issue. It exposes a critical weakness in your arguments and thus I believe you fear to discuss it with me. If I were you I would want to honestly confront any weaknesses in my arguments.

All those weird number of toes prints are big trouble for Sweaty. Watch him go.