• 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.

RayG said:
Would you agree that without a body all we can do is speculate?

RayG
Click to expand...


Without a body, or any other type of "proof" of Bigfoot's existence....all we have is "evidence", of many different types.
Evidence, pertaining to any particular subject, can carry many varying degrees of weight.
(Hence, there is no special, distinct category of evidence which is "reliable"....it's all ONE large gray-area of 'probabilities', varying from very weak to very strong.)

The main purpose for any discussion thread is to intellectually discuss and analyse the evidence, in an effort to determine it's true weight.

What you might think of as "pure speculation", others consider "scientific analysis".

I've been planning on writing something about the subject of "evidence", as a kind of 'exit blog'. I'll try to post it within the next week, or so.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Without a body, or any other type of "proof" of Bigfoot's existence....all we have is "evidence", of many different types.
Evidence, pertaining to any particular subject, can carry many varying degrees of weight.
(Hence, there is no special, distinct category of evidence which is "reliable"....it's all ONE large gray-area of 'probabilities', varying from very weak to very strong.)

The main purpose for any discussion thread is to intellectually discuss and analyse the evidence, in an effort to determine it's true weight.

What you might think of as "pure speculation", others consider "scientific analysis".

I've been planning on writing something about the subject of "evidence", as a kind of 'exit blog'. I'll try to post it within the next week, or so.
Click to expand...

Taking this '"weight of evidence", what's your position on Bigfoot?

a) zero possibility
b) they might exist
c) they are real
 
SweatyYeti said:
kitakaze wrote:

Can you point out an incorrect statement in my earlier post:

In your response to that post of mine, you said this:

But you failed to explain specifically where, and what, the error was in my post.

The only thing you said, concerning a possible error was this:

But the point of my post was:

You said:

In principle......can there be differences between the 'meanings, and purposes' of different phrases...which simply "concern a person's ideas"?

I know for a fact that there are.
Click to expand...

I understand that it bothers you getting a rejection on the slam dunk you were going for. I would at this point say we are getting close to pointless bickering that makes us both look foolish. The simple fact is that you asked an objective question to which I made my position clear. I answered in the negative but made an allowance for arguing semantics to the contrary. The reader of my response should have no problem understanding that I don't consider there to be any real chance that Patty or Bigfoot in general could be a bear. For this you accuse me of giving a non-answer and evasion. Not only do I think that that is not warranted but I also have pointed out you answering a question in a similar manner.

Drew asked you if there is reliable evidence for Bigfoot. In response you put forward the PGF and Joyce. I and others have made it clear how neither qualify. Even if you wanted to deny reliable evidence and say simply that they are very strong evidences you still will be shown to be wrong. Just the fact that the original film is MIA disqualifies the PGF. You think we can hold up Joyce as strong evidence and you haven't even spoken to the other person that allegedly saw a Bigfoot at the corner of Rt. 203 and State Farm Rd. in Valatie, New York. Sorry, buddy. Denied. Return to sender. No thank you. We'd like to see you refute that but it's clear that that is more than you can handle. You apparently would rather talk bears and how silly it is to think they could be related to Bigfoot.

You want to talk silly? Tell me why the Bigfoot/alien hypothesis is so silly. I would like the Bigfoot/UFO/Martian civilization fan guy to actually try and rationalize his answer that the Bigfoot/alien hypothesis is completely, ridiculously, laughably silly. I don't think you will. I think you'll make excuses because you know as soon as you do that the weakness of your arguments in support of Bigfoot will become glaringly evident. I'm using Sweaty against Sweaty and I don't think you can handle that kind of debate. I think when a person starts using the same tactics you employ in a debate with you that you would really rather talk about bears and giggle.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Without a body, or any other type of "proof" of Bigfoot's existence....all we have is "evidence", of many different types.
Evidence, pertaining to any particular subject, can carry many varying degrees of weight.
(Hence, there is no special, distinct category of evidence which is "reliable"....it's all ONE large gray-area of 'probabilities', varying from very weak to very strong.)
Click to expand...

No hence. No hence for you. Evidence that is reliable, that passes that basic QA/QC is what gives it the great weight you speak of. Getting through those hurdles is what makes it very strong evidence. You come to the table with that and the people who count will be start taking Bigfoot seriously.

OK, we have many types of evidence for Bigfoot. We have anecdotal evidence. We have alleged footprints. We have questionable photos, video, and film. That's nice. All of it is weak. It's all unreliable. None of it presents any major difficulty in accounting for without a real species of giant non-human bipedal primate living, eating, pooping, humping, and dying across your continent.

You want to deny reliable evidence but the effort is for naught. What we are asking you for beyond proof in the form of a type specimen is some evidence of it that can pass basic quality control and quality assurance. We are the FDA and we are telling you your beef is bad. Where's it been? Who's touched it? I don't know. Yuck. Whatcha got there? Some casts? Yippy skip. Gimme some boots and I'll go make some too. What's that? Old film? Where is it? Don't know? Yawn. Some lady said she and her daughter saw a Bigfoot in 1983 at the corner? Did you talk to both of them? No? Why are you wasting my time? The request for reliable evidence is completely valid and a matter of course when it comes to things like Bigfoot. If there really is such a creature as Bigfoot then it should be conforming to the same rules that apply to all large animals that share ecosystems with humans. The only way Bigfoot gets around those rules is by cheating and if you think the Bigfoot/alien idea is so silly then you have a problem on your hands.

The main purpose for any discussion thread is to intellectually discuss and analyse the evidence, in an effort to determine it's true weight.
Click to expand...

Well, no, actually. The purpose of any discussion thread is to discuss a given topic. What's interesting is that you say that but in this thread about Bigfoot evidence you are declining to discuss and analyze the evidence. We keep trying to get you to qualify Joyce, the PGF, four-toed prints, etc and you aren't interested. You are clearly motivated however when you think you can take some pot shots at dirty skeptics.

What you might think of as "pure speculation", others consider "scientific analysis".
Click to expand...

Do you know what analyze means, Sweaty? It means to examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations.
We see a lot of speculation from you but I'm having a hard time finding your scientific analysis. I see you saying your speculation is fine and mine is completely, ridiculously, laughably silly. What I don't see is any manner of explanation. I wonder why that is.

I've been planning on writing something about the subject of "evidence", as a kind of 'exit blog'. I'll try to post it within the next week, or so.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Being around a place where people have to keep leading you by the nose back to reality and every attempt to tar and feather skeptics backfires could be tiresome. You can go back to fantasyland and your bi-monthly JREF pot shot drive-bys. Be sure to ask the boys at MABRC about talking Bigfoots and four-toed prints.
 
captain koolaid said:
Taking this '"weight of evidence", what's your position on Bigfoot?

a) zero possibility
b) they might exist
c) they are real
Click to expand...


My position would be "B"...they might exist.
But, since "might" covers a very wide range, from a very low probability (1 in a million) to a very high probability, I'll go further than just saying "It might exist" and say I think the evidence indicates a very high probability of it's existence...in North America, and in other countries, too.


Given only those 3 choices..."B" should be everyone's position on the subject (unless a person has actually seen a Bigfoot, in which case they can move merrily along to position #3).
With very few exceptions, most people will agree that Bigfoot's existence falls within "the realm of possiblity", since it's existence doesn't violate any known 'laws of physics', and neither is it outside the boundaries of the "Evolutionary Tree". There is, therefore, no reason to think that it's existence is impossible.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
I think the evidence indicates a very high probability of it's existence...in North America, and in other countries, too.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you cite the very-high quality evidence that you must have in order to reach the conclusion that there is "a very high probability of it's existence" You know, since the quality of evidence is directly relatable to the level of belief. Maybe I missed it, if so, 'Mah bad!', but I don't think I saw it.
 
I have been following this thread off and on out of morbid curiosity. The one thing I don't recall being addressed directly is this: For what will the evidence be relied upon?

It seems that without a living specimen, scientists can't say that one is alive. Without a carcass or skeletal remains, scientists can't say one used to live. That doesn't seem to be debatable.

So what good is all this alleged evidence? Apparently it's good enough for some people to spend their spare time traipsing through the woods in search of better evidence. As long as they are not spending my money to do it, I'm okay with that. I'll snicker, of course, but it's no hair off my back (nyuk). If they ask me to tag along, I'll decline while trying to keep a straight face.

Are bigfoot beast people looking for tax dollars to indulge in their hobby? Anybody know? I could see that as an issue.
 
SweatyYeti said:
What you might think of as "pure speculation", others consider "scientific analysis".

.
Click to expand...

Would those "others" be qualified to know and recognize what TRUE "scientific analysis" actually is? ( and be able to differentiate it from "improperly applied or performed" scientific analysis)
 
William Parcher said:
It doesn't seem that Bigfoot is a real animal. It seems to be a myth.
Click to expand...

I think Bob might be offended being called a myth...lol
And if the real one gets on to reading this, he might go off on a hissy fit
and go toss some logs around, flip some cars over
pound on a bear. Thinking about that now... he may cause so much
ruckus we might just find it.
 
JcR said:
I think Bob might be offended being called a myth...lol
And if the real one gets on to reading this, he might go off on a hissy fit
and go toss some logs around, flip some cars over
pound on a bear. Thinking about that now... he may cause so much
ruckus we might just find it.
Click to expand...

Good idea but Locknar and Bruto already tried that and had no success.;)
 
I might set up a trail cam with a road kill deer to lure
in that big smelly fur ball.
I'll await eagerly for that picture, all night and all day
even a month. The smellier that deer gets the more enticing it will be.
Maybe I'll get a lot of pictures of nibblers, or catch a glimpse
of a rare meat eating woodpecker, there is something about patience with mother nature.
A mangy bear might walk off with my lure, put a ruin to my party.
And Going out to that stinky site everyday might be a bit too much.
So i thought of scrapping the deer and place a hundred dollar bill there.
Never know, they may be as greedy as us and if it shares the same genes
it surely would be.
If anything that might attract something to my trap, especially if their figuring that they might get screwed out of a payment.
Never a waste being out here, with a good strong cup of coffee
and a wide open eye, hoping that I could at least see the truth in natures own words.
Sometimes seeing nothing tells me more than I'll ever know.
 
Focus and cut'n'paste

Evasions apart, here are some of the issues haunting Sweaty.

- 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.

- 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.

- How you can be certain, absolutely sure, without a specimen or DNA that bigfeet -if real- can only be a primate.

- How you managed to reach the 100+my figure?

- 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!')
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
My position would be "B"...they might exist.
But, since "might" covers a very wide range, from a very low probability (1 in a million) to a very high probability, I'll go further than just saying "It might exist" and say I think the evidence indicates a very high probability of it's existence...in North America, and in other countries, too.
Click to expand...

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...??


Given only those 3 choices..."B" should be everyone's position on the subject (unless a person has actually seen a Bigfoot, in which case they can move merrily along to position #3).
With very few exceptions, most people will agree that Bigfoot's existence falls within "the realm of possiblity", since it's existence doesn't violate any known 'laws of physics', and neither is it outside the boundaries of the "Evolutionary Tree". There is, therefore, no reason to think that it's existence is impossible.
Click to expand...

Such an animal as Bigfoot being a large bipedal non-human primate is not impossible in any manner of the word. Totally fine. Such an animal living, eating, pooping, humping, and dying across the NA continent with no type specimen is beyond ludicrous. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs a reality check.
 
SweatyYeti likes to think that the available Bigfoot evidence indicates a species of giant bipedal non-human primate existing all across North America remaining unclassified.

SweatyYeti likes to post images of Martian rock formations as evidence of alien civilizations. Here's the thread for that:

SweatyYeti's Martian Civilization Evidence Thread.

SweatyYeti likes to think that certain NASA videos show clandestine conflicts with extraterrestrials. Here's the thread for that:

SweatyYeti's STS-48 Shuttle Mission UFO thread.

SweatyYeti thinks my alien/Bigfoot hypothesis is completely, ridiculously, laughably silly. I think the appropriate Sweaty response for such a situation would be liberal use of these:

:boggled::boggled::boggled:

But wait! I have found important, possibly revolutionary, evidence of the Bigfoot/alien hypothesis that could potentially unite all of the above Sweaty beliefs. This is major:



And now for liberal use of these:

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

I know many of you have seen that image before. What you need to do is reconsider Sweaty's arguments that I have referenced and do as he does and think outside the box.

Sweaty vs Sweaty.

The end has begun.
 
I'll bite. What is that? an image of a Bigfoot in full ceremonial Alien Federation uniform, strutting across Valles Marineris?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom