• 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.

SweatyYeti at "Bigfoot Evidence Flowchart" thread said:
In the meantime...can you provide a few examples of evidence which don't qualify as "Reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence", but are only of moderate strength, regarding Bigfoot's existence?
Click to expand...
We surely would have problems agreeing on what's "moderate strenght" and how important would it be... But down the (qualitative) evidence strenght scale, I would add:

- Tracks with signs of real articulated, living feet -check DesertYeti's posts for details. These signs would include changes in toe position, impact patterns and eventually matching "dermal patterns".

- PGF-quality imagery not suspected of being a hoax. Repeatbility would be wellcome.

- Sighting reports clustered at a given area, say, like part of PNW and with a better detail fit than "hairy bipedal". Note that arbitrarily cherry-picking reports which fit in this condition is an useless exercise.

- The fossil of a bigfoot-like critter in Asia near the land bridge (may be older than the LGM).

Note that with the exception of fossils, none of the above precludes hoaxing and/or misidentifications, intentional or not. Note also that these "moderate" pieces of evidence are not available...

You must understand Sweaty, that even if I have a bigfoot sighting, this will not be, by any means "reliable evidence". It could be enough to convince me, but it would still be an anecdote. "Guys, I saw one, I think a real bigfeet is the most likely explanation to my experience but I have nothing of solid to back it" would be as far as I would be entitled to go. The presently available evidences and bigfoot science would not increase in quality.

But hey, maybe this will happen, since pete tornado accepted an U$ 5K bet with me. If in 5 weeks WWIII has not started, I -or an USA based skeptic (most likely, since airline tickets would eat most of this money)- will use his 5K to pay a visit say, to bulletmaker's bigfoot reserve and check the "evidence" in situ. Maybe I'll be spooked enough by eyeshines in the dark, howls, woodknocking and stomps to start believing in bigfeet... I am thinking outside of the box, right?
 
Re-posted...from one of the many other Bigfoot threads...


Correa Neto wrote:
More than once I made this. Last time was at that "evidences" thread. Feel free to check it or use the search function.
Click to expand...



Here are your examples, from post #16 of the "Reliable Evidence" thread:


Reliable evidence:
1. DNA (from poop, hair folicles, skin, blood, tissue pieces, nails) - a result like "unknown genus from the Ponginae subfamily". Sample provenance is a must.

2. Imagery - sharp images or footage, from an undisputed source (someone whose career would be ruined if found involved somehow in a hoax), showing the critter doing things which would be hard to replicate in a suit. Can be elevated to the level of "proof" if additional imagery can be obtained by independent teams.

3. Fossil remains of a bigfoot-like creature in North America (in Asia, near the land bridge and at an environment similar to where bigfeet are supposed to live would be very close in terms of quality)

4. Casts of consecutive footprints showing the same "dermals" (note - casting artifacts and hoaxery must be ruled out).

If we have a long track and the track shows evidences of a real, living foot, such as toes with different positions, morphology changes due to stride and pace changes and the caster was carefull enough when collecting the data as well as some stuff I can't think about right now, maybe it can be reliable evidence.
It can be still be interpreted in three ways - a real bigfoot did it, a human did it (I'm asuming the foot is what we see from currently available material- very human-like) or an elaborated hoax.
It will not be proof; it may be good enough to raise eyebrows and open the door to a more detailed and expensive follow-up.
Click to expand...



I'll re-post this response of mine over on the "Reliable Evidence" thread, and continue the discussion there. I'll comment on those examples later.

In the meantime...can you provide a few examples of evidence which don't qualify as "Reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence", but are only of moderate strength, regarding Bigfoot's existence?
 
Correa Neto wrote:
- Sighting reports clustered at a given area, say, like part of PNW and with a better detail fit than "hairy bipedal". Note that arbitrarily cherry-picking reports which fit in this condition is an useless exercise.
Click to expand...


But, Correa....you have stated earlier that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to give the evidence for Bigfoot any weight, based on an intellectual basis...and that any weight given to the available evidence is done so only on the basis of emotion...a "will to believe".


So....the problem is....how do we get from "ALL sighting reports, to date, carry NO WEIGHT whatsoever".....to "sighting reports can carry a moderate (not 'strong') weight"???

What, specifically, has been the missing "magic ingredient"....in all of the sighting reports in North America to date....that, if present, would suddenly give a sighting report some weight? :confused:
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
So....the problem is....how do we get from "ALL sighting reports, to date, carry NO WEIGHT whatsoever".....to "sighting reports can carry a moderate (not 'strong') weight"???

What, specifically, has been the missing "magic ingredient"....in all of the sighting reports in North America to date....that, if present, would suddenly give a sighting report some weight? :confused:
Click to expand...

Let me help you out sweaty

a PROPER investigation conducted by QUALIFIED people yielding VERIFIABLE evidence that can be CONFIRMED independantly.

You might meet the qualifier of "some" weight if you have a CLEAR,FOCUSED,DETAILED image or video.

Hope that helps
 
Correa Neto said:
You must understand Sweaty, that even if I have a bigfoot sighting, this will not be, by any means "reliable evidence". It could be enough to convince me, but it would still be an anecdote. "Guys, I saw one, I think a real bigfeet is the most likely explanation to my experience but I have nothing of solid to back it" would be as far as I would be entitled to go. The presently available evidences and bigfoot science would not increase in quality.
Click to expand...

On my last visit to Vancouver Island while I was climbing mountains and hiking all over the place I had that thought. What if I actually saw something? What if kitakaze came one day on the JREF and said "OMG! I saw one! I @#$%ing saw one!"? How should I expect my fellow JREF members to react? I would expect them to think I was up to something before accepting I actually saw Bigfoot. Even if I was able to convince my fellow skeptics here that I saw something, in no way does it qualify as any kind of reliable evidence for establishing the existence of Bigfoot.

Sightings can be interesting but they aren't reliable evidence. If people kept going into the Carmannah Valley or Gifford Pinchot and seeing Bigfoots consistently there only that would be more interesting than what we have now. You guys are talking about hundreds of sightings all over the continent every year thinking that's persuasive and you don't even realize you're making yourselves look like idiots.
 
Sweaty, is my Bigfoot Mars photo evidence of the alien/Bigfoot hypothesis? If so what kind of weight would you assign it?
 
SweatyYeti said:
But, Correa....you have stated earlier that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to give the evidence for Bigfoot any weight, based on an intellectual basis...and that any weight given to the available evidence is done so only on the basis of emotion...a "will to believe".
Click to expand...
Got a link to this text?
I would like to see it and its context.

SweatyYeti said:
So....the problem is....how do we get from "ALL sighting reports, to date, carry NO WEIGHT whatsoever".....to "sighting reports can carry a moderate (not 'strong') weight"???

What, specifically, has been the missing "magic ingredient"....in all of the sighting reports in North America to date....that, if present, would suddenly give a sighting report some weight? :confused:
Click to expand...
There's no "missing magic ingredient"; lots of things are missing and or problematic. I'll briefly cite just a couple of the many issues already discussed at the bigfoot threads -it seems you probably missed them.

1. Bigfoot sightings compose a very heterogeneous group. Location, behavior and renderings do not have internal consistency; they have several internal contradictions.

2. Lack of a propper investigation methodology from the part of self-proclaimed bigfoot experts. What you folks have right now are nothing but highly biased selections of reports and parts of reports. What are the ingredients of a good sighting? Where to draw the line? Glowing red eyes? PNW x Eastern Coast? Multiple sightings? Stealing bean cans? Detailed descriptions? How to decrease the possibility of hoaxes or misidentifications(*)?

If you folks manage to develop a good methodology to handle this data and if the propper use of this methodology produces a better picture, then perhaps sighting reports could compose a "moderate quality" dataset. But still it would not be reliable evidence. Note that it would still be miles away from the forensic examination of an eyewitness at a court tribunal.

(*)Includes hallucinations, false memories, etc.
 
Correa Neto wrote:
If you folks manage to develop a good methodology to handle this data and if the propper use of this methodology produces a better picture, then perhaps sighting reports could compose a "moderate quality" dataset.
Click to expand...


Correa....my question was about the sighting reports themselves, not 'us believers, or 'folks'.


Again....

What, specifically, has been the missing "magic ingredient"....in all of the sighting reports in North America to date....that, if present, would suddenly give a sighting report some weight?
Click to expand...



You have said before that the evidence for Bigfoot carries NO weight whatsoever....and that includes thousands of sighting reports, going back hundreds of years, or more.

These sighting reports have included all kinds of different circumstances, from the types of people making the reports, to the numbers of people involved in a sighting (multiple witnesses), to different viewing conditions (in Joyce's case, it was a multiple-witness sighting, under daylight conditions, with a lengthy view of the subject.).

So, if in all of these reports, NONE have carried any weight on an individual basis, and collectively they've carried no weight.......then what specifically is the ingredient, (that's been missing from ALL of the sightings to date) that will allow a sighting report to simply carry a moderate (maybe a 50% probability) amount of weight of being legitimate?
 
Sweaty, all the answers can be found at my previous post. Please read it carefully, avoid quote-mining, semantic arguments and present the link to what you claim I wrote.
 
Sorry, Kitakaze, but paranormal bigfeet just scored another point. The bigfoot-poltergeist connection is unveiled at last!
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/stone-throwing/

Yep, I'm a bit angry because I should have seen this by myself first.

So, unless you can make your Martian bigfoot also a paranormal bigfoot, you are dead on the water. I know how to. Do you know?

Hint: Quatermass and the Pit.


Its the base of my brand-new UBT (Unified Bigfoot Theory). Gonna make lots of dollars selling books (Bigfoot, Pyramids and the Nephelin - The Martian Connection) and charging for conferences as soon as I build a new persona.
 
SweatyYeti said:
So, if in all of these reports, NONE have carried any weight on an individual basis, and collectively they've carried no weight.......then what specifically is the ingredient, (that's been missing from ALL of the sightings to date) that will allow a sighting report to simply carry a moderate (maybe a 50% probability) amount of weight of being legitimate?
Click to expand...

See post 386
 
SweatyYeti said:
Correa Neto wrote:



Correa....my question was about the sighting reports themselves, not 'us believers, or 'folks'.


Again....





You have said before that the evidence for Bigfoot carries NO weight whatsoever....and that includes thousands of sighting reports, going back hundreds of years, or more.

These sighting reports have included all kinds of different circumstances, from the types of people making the reports, to the numbers of people involved in a sighting (multiple witnesses), to different viewing conditions (in Joyce's case, it was a multiple-witness sighting, under daylight conditions, with a lengthy view of the subject.).

So, if in all of these reports, NONE have carried any weight on an individual basis, and collectively they've carried no weight.......then what specifically is the ingredient, (that's been missing from ALL of the sightings to date) that will allow a sighting report to simply carry a moderate (maybe a 50% probability) amount of weight of being legitimate?
Click to expand...

what do you base that on again, sweaty?
 
Correa Neto said:
Sweaty, all the answers can be found at my previous post. Please read it carefully, avoid quote-mining, semantic arguments...
Click to expand...


I'll comment on your "answers" tomorrow.


...and present the link to what you claim I wrote.
Click to expand...


Do you not know what your own thoughts are, in this matter???

I'll ask it again, while I'm looking for the original quote of yours...

Is it possible for a person to determine that the evidence for Bigfoot carries some weight, based on an intellectual analysis.....or, is any such determination based solely on emotion, or, a "will-to-believe"?
 
SweatyYeti said:
These sighting reports have included all kinds of different circumstances, from the types of people making the reports, to the numbers of people involved in a sighting (multiple witnesses), to different viewing conditions (in Joyce's case, it was a multiple-witness sighting, under daylight conditions, with a lengthy view of the subject.).
Click to expand...

If I give you links to alleged multiple witness Bigfoot reports in which daylight, length, UFO's, and talking Bigfoots are mentioned what weight will you assign them?

And for the millionth time, characterizing Joyce's claim as a multiple witness sighting as though it lend credence to the claim means nothing when you have never spoken to the other person involved. Sorry, Columbo. Not very persuasive evidence. Once again here is a link to the discussion in the 411 PGF where Sweaty's arguments about Joyce are completely demolished:

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=42523&page=283
 
Correa Neto said:
Sorry, Kitakaze, but paranormal bigfeet just scored another point. The bigfoot-poltergeist connection is unveiled at last!
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/stone-throwing/

Yep, I'm a bit angry because I should have seen this by myself first.

So, unless you can make your Martian bigfoot also a paranormal bigfoot, you are dead on the water. I know how to. Do you know?


Its the base of my brand-new UBT (Unified Bigfoot Theory). Gonna make lots of dollars selling books (Bigfoot, Pyramids and the Nephelin - The Martian Connection) and charging for conferences as soon as I build a new persona.
Click to expand...

*Seinfeld mode* Neto!

Your UBT stinks worse than the ionized methane emissions that may be emitted from the cloaking devices used with various genetic manipulants such as Bigfoot. And poltergeists? Puhleeeease. You obviously don't recognize ealier generation phase protocol experiments. Their understanding of metamaterial technology and the problems of refraction and opacity are obviously far beyond ours.

I can easily dismantle any ghostfoot you send my way. Many cases of poltergeists are simpley various incidents involving alien technology and experiments. So there.

:train
 
Speaking of Seinfeld, I feel like Jerry lining up for the Soup Nazi. I'm just going to line up and put out my submissions for Sweaty treatment:

1. What's the very strong evidence you are referring to that indicates a high probability? I know it's not the film with the MIA original or the lady you talked to on the phone soooo...??

2. Could the Bigfoot/UFO/Martian civilization fan rationalize his answer that the Bigfoot/alien hypothesis is completely, ridiculously, laughably silly? Please remember that the hypothesis does not predicate interdimensional travel.

3. Is my Bigfoot Mars photo evidence of the alien/Bigfoot hypothesis? Why or why not? If so what kind of weight would you assign it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom