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

[GT/CS]

Once again, I don't think Bigfoot are bears. Bigfoot as traditionally described by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate. Primates have five toes. What's up with all the four-toed prints in the southern U.S.? This is evidence is being used by proponents to support Bigfoot's existence. What's up with that? Is Bigfoot something unlike anything we've seen?

Inbreeding.

 

[Correa Neto]

Here are some of those pesky issues again...

-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?

Still waiting for the thread comparing Patty with other costumes.

 

[Correa Neto]

Paranthropus or gigantopithecus? None of them. I propose Giganthropohirsutus fradulentuus pattersonii.

That article gives absolutely no support to any footer viewpoint and has a huge credibility issue. It is mainly composed by nothing but empty speculations. It was written by a guy who says there are 9 or 12 species of unknown primates in North America based on unreliable evidence. Its an article written by a guy who thinks -or writes as if thinked- that mothman and chupacabra (among other nonsensensical stuff) are real.

It seems that some footers will fail to see any problems with this probably because they share similar beliefs...
"Chupacabra-Literally, goat sucker. This strange creature has been killing animals in Puerto Rico."
"Mothman-A weird, winged humanoid figure that appeared frequently in West Virginia in the 60s"
"Werewolf-A person who can change into a wolf. There have not been many recent cases, but who knows? One famous such wolves was the Beast of Gevaudan, which reported killed and ate 60 people (not at once, though)"
Where's the article on Martian civilizations?

Forgive me if I keep my mind closed....

 

[SweatyYeti]

But Sweaty doesn't want to talk about...

He wants to talk about...

He doesn't want to stay...

He wants to pretend...

Sweaty sees more potential...

As long as he can pursue this he will.

Sweaty just wants to point out that kitakaze is obsessing over Sweaty's thoughts, intentions, secret desires, etc...


kitty does this with many of us Footers, on a consistent basis.

Me thinks he's troubled.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Its an article written by a guy who thinks -or writes as if thinked- that mothman and chupacabra (among other nonsensensical stuff) are real.

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.


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

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty just wants to point out that kitakaze is obsessing over Sweaty's thoughts, intentions, secret desires, etc...


kitty does this with many of us Footers, on a consistent basis.

Me thinks he's troubled.

What's that? Sweaty wants to deflect criticisms from a person who points out his weak arguments and dishonest tactics by saying that person is troubled for doing so? Yes, we can see that, thanks. Sweaty tries a Lyndon. Hey, whatever it takes to distract from flawed arguments, right?

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?

Also can you try substantiating your opinion that the PGF and Joyce's tale qualify as very strong evidence of Bigfoot?

 

[kitakaze]

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.


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

You got to talk to Loren? You lucky thing. You should have asked him about three and four-toed Bigfoots.

How's DTK/Luminous/Pastor Kerry doing these days? Hope he's leaving the Beaver dams alone on any new Bigfoot expeditions.

I wonder what Bigfoot eats in Whitehall and why all the footers there can't find any reliable evidence.

 

[tube]

The recent Bigfoot conference in Jefferson, Texas did not include Jimmy Chilcutt as a speaker. Thus no presentation on Bigfoot-casts-have-dermal-ridges-so-Bigfoot-is-real-and-is-a-primate.

Instead, a new speaker, Dana Holyfield, discussed the "Honey Island Swamp Monster".

Take a look at the casts on display at Holyfield's website:

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/

How does traditional Green-Krantz-Meldrum Bigfootery assess our Southern "boogers"?

 

[kitakaze]

Yeah, I was thinking of the Honey Island Swamp Monster. Those casts don't look like any kind of primate.

Scrolling down...

Whoa! Hot footer.

Look out, Autmn Williams. Here comes Dana Holyfield. Rrrrowr.

I'm interested in Dana's Cajun Sexy Cookin' video cookbook of low fat recipes on DVD.

I can see a bunch of footer guys at that conference... "B-b-b-b Bigfoot?"

 

[captain koolaid]

Take a look at the casts on display at Holyfield's website:

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/

How does traditional Green-Krantz-Meldrum Bigfootery assess our Southern "boogers"?

The evidence continues to mount. But Green-Krantz-Meldrum Bigfootery won't face the terrifying truth.

http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm

 

[kitakaze]

I would think Sweaty really likes four-toed Bigfoots considering that's what his avatar is.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, since we're looking at tridactyly and tetradactyly Bigfoots we might as well chuck a polydactyly Bigfoot in there:

Six-toed 'Sasquatch' sighting in northern Ont.

 

[kitakaze]

On the off chance that Dana Holyfield might read JREF...

Dana, might I suggest a merger between your Bigfoot projects and Sexy Cajun Cookin'?

Sexy Cajun girls doin' sexy Cajun Bigfoot hunting:



http://www.angelfire.com/la2/cajunsexycooking/

Stacey standing in a tree there would be perfect.

 

[Uncayimmy]

He presented viewpoints from both sides of the matter.

I didn't realize there were two sides. I mean, both sides agree that no living mothman has been caught, right? And no dead one has been found, right? And no piece of living or dead one has turned up, right?

So, both sides *must* agree that the existence of a mothman (or bigfoot beast) is pure conjecture. As a practical matter the only thing to consider is whether there's enough value in the circumstantial evidence to justify expending effort trying to find one. That's mostly a personal decision unless we're talking about using our combined tax dollars in the hunt.

So, what two sides were presented? A debate over whether mothman has a pouch or not?

 

[Cavemonster]

Here's a question back to the central topic.

Is there a single scientifically acknowledged species for which the only available evidence of it's existence is amateur video and footprint casts?

Has there ever been a species for which such 'evidence' has been found but whose existence was not confirmed for more than let's say 50 years?

Is there a single large mammal whose habitat is known, but for whom it has been impossible to find scat, hair, bones or any other physical specimen?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty wants to deflect...

Sweaty tries a Lyndon.


I would think Sweaty really likes...

kitakaze obsesses some more.

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.

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

Sweaty will continue to dishonestly try and gloss over the correctness of Ray's response in the context originally given.
This is what Sweaty does - he uses dishonest tactics...

Also can you try substantiating your opinion that the PGF and Joyce's tale qualify as very strong evidence of Bigfoot?

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.

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.

 

[RayG]

...but I simply don't have enough time available to me to respond to all the questions

You don't seem to have enough time for fact-checking either.

......plus the misrepresentations and accusations against me.

Against you? Good thing I wasn't drinking something...

Can you point out these misrepresentations and accusations against you? More importantly, can you show how these misrepresentations and accusations are false?

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

Can you point out these misrepresentations and accusations against you? More importantly, can you show how these misrepresentations and accusations are false?

Sorry, I don't have time to do that, right now.
I gave a few examples of those things, earlier in this thread....and also, in the post you just responded to, I mentioned a brand-new false accusation against me.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ray.


Ray's post is another good example of the BS that I have to 'wade through' to get to the reasonable, and sensible posts.

 

[RayG]

Sorry, I don't have time to do that, right now.

Ah, but of course, Riverdance is in town.

I gave a few examples of those things, earlier in this thread....and also, in the post you just responded to, I mentioned a brand-new false accusation against me.

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?

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ray.

Funny you should mention that, I'm waiting for two large double-doubles to arrive at any moment.

Ray's post is another good example of the BS that I have to 'wade through' to get to the reasonable, and sensible posts.

It's such a pleasure not having to do that with your posts Sweaty. I start with the assumption that your post will be illogical, unreasonable, and make very little sense. You haven't disappointed me yet.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Here's a question back to the central topic.

Is there a single scientifically acknowledged species for which the only available evidence of it's existence is amateur video and footprint casts?

Has there ever been a species for which such 'evidence' has been found but whose existence was not confirmed for more than let's say 50 years?

Is there a single large mammal whose habitat is known, but for whom it has been impossible to find scat, hair, bones or any other physical specimen?

Those are all excellent questions which I think can all be answered in the negative.