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

[kitakaze]

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.

Ah-ha.

Love to here an explanation for the above question as soon as you can make up some kind of answer.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

I'll tell you what, Sweaty. Let's not over-tax you. You've got a full dance card already. If you missed it I already provided a link to your arguments about Joyce and paraphrased your position on the PGF. Any reader can follow that link to a complete and utter dismantling of Joyce's tale as reliable evidence and we've pointed out in this thread the PGF's disqualification many times. Feel free to argue that but the facts are against you.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

1) Bigfoot as traditionally described by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate.

2) Ray wasn't being unreasonable to say that Bigfoot if in fact existing may not be a primate.

3) Ray was completely right when he responded to your question I previously quoted from the BFF by saying bears. Is that correct? Please answer the question yes or no (with whatever explanation you like).

4) Primates have five toes. Apparently Bigfoot often doesn't. What's up with that?

Please do not ignore these points.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Aaand again:

Are you not making up a line of Non-Human Primates which evolved bipedalism, AND emigrated to the N. American continent? I think the point of the Marsupial/Monotremata example is to show that they have as much reliable evidence for that theory, as you do for the Bipedal/Hairy/N.American/Non-human Primate theory.

Must... ignore... the... obvious.

Logic... failing.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Hi. Need a spotter? OK, I'll spot you. Up we go... There is evidence of Bigfoot. The same evidence also points to a creature that in many cases has other than 5 toes. It has glowing red eyes. It can speak. It has claws and fangs. etc.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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.

1) Bigfoot as traditionally described by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate.

2) Ray wasn't being unreasonable to say that Bigfoot if in fact existing may not be a primate.

3) Ray was completely right when he responded to your question I previously quoted from the BFF by saying bears. Is that correct? Please answer the question yes or no (with whatever explanation you like).

4) Primates have five toes. Apparently Bigfoot often doesn't. What's up with that?

Please do not ignore these points.

Here's a point you're not going to ignore, kitty.

You said this:

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...

Explain EXACTLY how I have been dishonest.

 

[kitakaze]

Here's a point you're not going to ignore, kitty.

You said this:




Explain EXACTLY how I have been dishonest.

You see how you answer the post without responding to what's directed at you. It's kinda showing what I'm talking about.

KK: I have a question. Please don't ignore it.

SY: I don't evade. Here's a question for you.

KK: Uhhh... hello?

Yeah, Sweaty, answer the post and you'll get your explanation.

 

[kitakaze]

Poor Louisiana Bigfoots. 16 digits and Flock of Seagulls hair:

http://www.geocities.com/northlabigfoot/index.html

 

[chillzero]

Do not continue bickering. Keep the thread on topic, and discuss the actual topic - do not personalise the thread.

It would seem that the topic (when the personalised 'call-out' of the title and OP are removed) is what constitutes "reliable evidence" and what would constitute "proof" in the field of Bigfoot research.

Further bickering will invite further mod action.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

1) Bigfoot as traditionally described by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate.

To be more accurate....

Bigfoot, as traditionally, and most commonly, described by people (not all of whom are "Bigfoot enthusiasts"), best fits with a Primate..........by a few dozen light-years closer than anything from the Bear, Dog, or Deer family.

(Heck, we'll throw in the Possum family, too.)

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty- Please provide the reliable evidence which shows that Bigfoot sightings are more likely to be a primate, than any number of other things. such as: Hallucinations, Bears, Wishful thinking, hoaxing.

 

[tyr_13]

Got any reliable evidence of this other than, 'people say so'?

Didn't think so.

 

[kitakaze]

Do not continue bickering. Keep the thread on topic, and discuss the actual topic - do not personalise the thread.

It would seem that the topic (when the personalised 'call-out' of the title and OP are removed) is what constitutes "reliable evidence" and what would constitute "proof" in the field of Bigfoot research.

Further bickering will invite further mod action.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

This thread was started in order to give a proper place for a discussion that would often arise in the PGF thread. After considering your comments, chill, on my choice of title thread I agree that it can be considered a personalized call-out. Indeed, I was calling out Sweaty to address the issue. I will refrain from using a member's name in a title thread in the future so as to avoid unduly personalizing a discussion.

I consider SweatyYeti's manner of engaging in a discussion to be often frustrating and disingenuine. I think when flaws and weaknesses in his arguments are exposed that he attempts to shift the discussion away and ignores addressing those problems. I think this thread sufficiently shows that. I also understand that for a person who isn't actively following the discussion that portions of this thread could be considered bickering.

The discussion of bears and Bigfoot and RayG's statement from years ago on another forum that Bigfoot's may not be primates is what I think is a typical Sweaty diversion. I think Sweaty was only interested in putting egg on skeptic's faces and thus persisted in that OT topic. I am responsible for repeatedly engaging in that topic.

This thread is not exactly about what constitutes proof of Bigfoot but rather that and additionaly what qualifies as reliable evidence. I think that Sweaty's arguments that the PGF and the 1983 Valatie, NY sighting report could qualify as reliable evidence have been quite sufficiently ruled out. I invite any arguments to the contrary.

 

[kitakaze]

To be more accurate....

Bigfoot, as traditionally, and most commonly, described by people (not all of whom are "Bigfoot enthusiasts"), best fits with a Primate..........by a few dozen light-years closer than anything from the Bear, Dog, or Deer family.

(Heck, we'll throw in the Possum family, too.)

It would be interesting to look at some reliable statistics on the issue. I certainly agree that not everyone who feels they saw a Bigfoot or other cryptid beast is an enthusiast of that creature. I think such cases are most likely the result of misidentification, hoaxing, and seeing something that isn't there.

The issue I am putting forward is that in many cases the evidence put forward by Bigfoot enthusiasts points to a creature that doesn't squarely fit with a primate. The many casts with other than five toes is a prime example.

None of that evidence qualifies as reliable evidence.

 

[JcR]

I would really jump on the opportunity
to go on a bigfoot hunt.
All alone, by myself...
on a expedition of solitude.
I just tingle at the idea of frolicking off somewhere.
To a place deep into the interior of British columbia.
With it's acres of untouched barren.
No wait, maybe somewhere in oregon, Washington state maybe... hmmm
now that I am thinking of elusive hairy creatures...
why not Alaska, now that is a land created by god's own hand.
Peaks that seem to reach up to the heavens.
Great thickets of trees and crisp cold streams.
I can almost imagine a bigfoot in a hide somewhere.
Waiting for me to stumble on by.
looking at me fumble with my camera, like i always do, when I am thinking what i see...
is an eye in the brush.
Yes this great land of Alaska...
with its pure white snow, a blanket made just to disguise it's polar bears.
land of Palin, and oil of plenty... well maybe not Alaska then.

But wherever i find myself, whatever place that i end up to be. I promise to get as many pictures of fuzzy furry bear butts as possible.
"I will post them promptly".

 

[KingOfWings]

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!

Nominated. Made me knock my beer to the floor.

 

[kitakaze]

I would really jump on the opportunity
to go on a bigfoot hunt.
All alone, by myself...
on a expedition of solitude.
I just tingle at the idea of frolicking off somewhere.
To a place deep into the interior of British columbia.
With it's acres of untouched barren.
No wait, maybe somewhere in oregon, Washington state maybe... hmmm
now that I am thinking of elusive hairy creatures...
why not Alaska, now that is a land created by god's own hand.
Peaks that seem to reach up to the heavens.
Great thickets of trees and crisp cold streams.
I can almost imagine a bigfoot in a hide somewhere.
Waiting for me to stumble on by.
looking at me fumble with my camera, like i always do, when I am thinking what i see...
is an eye in the brush.
Yes this great land of Alaska...
with its pure white snow, a blanket made just to disguise it's polar bears.
land of Palin, and oil of plenty... well maybe not Alaska then.

But wherever i find myself, whatever place that i end up to be. I promise to get as many pictures of fuzzy furry bear butts as possible.
"I will post them promptly".

It's like channeling Huntster if Huntster had any kind of poetic streak. I think he'd rather shoot a bear. I kinda miss that old fart.

(Huntster was our resident burly Alaskan Bigfoot enthusiast before he opted for death by mod.)

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

The issue I am putting forward is that in many cases the evidence put forward by Bigfoot enthusiasts points to a creature that doesn't squarely fit with a primate. The many casts with other than five toes is a prime example.

Here is a fresh report of a sighting....

http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_10846711

A couple of lines of interest from the article:

He called the Department of Fish and Game biologist and found there were no apelike animals native to North America and that no such creature had been reported lost in the area.

As usual....the reported creature resembled a cross between an Ape and a Man....not a 'Bear and a Man'...or a 'Bear and a Deer'...or a 'Bear and a Miller Beer'...or a 'Beer and a Pretzel'............etc.

"I've interviewed 40 eyewitnesses and spoken with at least a dozen others," says Yamarone. "Chris' account is consistent with other reports,

 

[kitakaze]

As usual....the reported creature resembled a cross between an Ape and a Man....not a 'Bear and a Man'...or a 'Bear and a Deer'...or a 'Bear and a Miller Beer'...or a 'Beer and a Pretzel'............etc.

Notice that you haven't responded to the issue of the many apparent cases of Bigfoots with other than the usual number of digits for primates.

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?

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, I'm bringing a response of yours from the Bigfoot top of the food chain? thread here where it is appropriate:

BTW, just to be clear, the punctuation and emoticons that Sweaty is putting in quotes of me saying "I don't think so," are not mine.

The "Unsure" emoticon expresses 'uncertainty, or confusion'...a state of perplexity on a subject.....and your answer "I don't think so" expresses the exact same thing concerning those questions I asked you.

I didn't distort, change or twist the meaning of your answer in the least.


It's laughable that you are not absolutely certain whether it's possible or impossible for Patty to be a Grizzly Bear.
Nothing short of laughable!!

What do you think people would say about M.K. Davis if he announced, after doing more analysis of the PG Film, that Patty was a Grizzly Bear?? You think people would have laughed?

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.

Allow me to explain how you are misinterpretting and misrepresenting my answer to your question. When I used the words "I don't think so" about whether Bigfoot or Patty could be a bear I am not expressing uncertainty on the matter. I - do - not - think - so. I do not believe it to be so. It is my opinion that Patty and Bigfoot in general could not be a bear (not to be confused with my opinion that bears are responsible for many Bigfoot claims). That is what I think.

It is the same as you saying that it is your opinion that there is what could qualify as reliable evidence. It is the same as you saying that you consider Joyce and the PGF to qualify. There is no difference. To point a finger at me laughing saying that I put some reasonable consideration to the possibility of Bigfoot or Patty being a bear is not an accurate representation of my position and I am confident you were aware of that when you made the implication.

It is also my opinion that the discussion on bears is not relevant to the topic of this thread. I would like to hear how you think Joyce and the PGF qualify as reliable evidence if you have more to elaborate on what we've seen of your thoughts in this thread already.