• 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.

LONGTABBER PE said:
SweatyYeti wrote:

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?
Click to expand...


Let me help you out sweaty

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


Why in the world would a piece of evidence need to be confirmed to be from a Bigfoot, to indicate only a 50% probability that it came from a real Bigfoot??

"Confirmation" would prove...i.e. indicate a 100% probability...that the evidence came from a real Bigfoot.





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

Hope that helps
Click to expand...


Again....your conditions (clear, focused, and detailed video) would indicate a very high probability, if not outright proof, that the evidence came from a real Bigfoot.
But that's not what I asked Correa about. My question concerns evidence which carries only approx. a 50/50 chance of being from a real, live Bigfoot.
 
kitakaze wrote:
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
Click to expand...


When I first called Joyce's number, I talked to her husband (Joyce wasn't home), and he supported her story, 100%.

So......as my buddy Columbo would say...


"Now why would the husband support his wife's story, if his own daughter told him it wasn't true??? That doesn't make any sense to me......does it make any sense to you??
I mean....they all live in the same house....the father must have talked to the daughter about this incredible sighting. It seems to me that we only have 2 choices here.....either the daughter agreed with Joyce's version of the sighting....or both Joyce and her husband are a little nutty."






"Oh......ummm....just one more thing...."
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Why in the world would a piece of evidence need to be confirmed to be from a Bigfoot, to indicate only a 50% probability that it came from a real Bigfoot??

"Confirmation" would prove...i.e. indicate a 100% probability...that the evidence came from a real Bigfoot.

Again....your conditions (clear, focused, and detailed video) would indicate a very high probability, if not outright proof, that the evidence came from a real Bigfoot.
But that's not what I asked Correa about. My question concerns evidence which carries only approx. a 50/50 chance of being from a real, live Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Sweaty, you spin and obfuscate so much- a person will get dizzy just talking to you
 
SweatyYeti said:
Again....your conditions (clear, focused, and detailed video) would indicate a very high probability, if not outright proof, that the evidence came from a real Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

I disagree that simply being clear, focused, and detailed automatically gives a video a very high probability or even proves it was of a real Bigfoot. Who made it? Where did it come? What were the conditions of it's filming and coming to public attention? I can easily envision a scenario involving an effects company being involved in a hoax video. It's happened before.
 
SweatyYeti said:
When I first called Joyce's number, I talked to her husband (Joyce wasn't home), and he supported her story, 100%.

So......as my buddy Columbo would say...


"Now why would the husband support his wife's story, if his own daughter told him it wasn't true??? That doesn't make any sense to me......does it make any sense to you??
I mean....they all live in the same house....the father must have talked to the daughter about this incredible sighting. It seems to me that we only have 2 choices here.....either the daughter agreed with Joyce's version of the sighting....or both Joyce and her husband are a little nutty."

"Oh......ummm....just one more thing...."
Click to expand...

Those are not the only two choices. Elements your will to believe blinded you to were explained to you in explicit detail in the 411 PGF thread discussion on Joyce that I have linked to twice in this thread. You had no rebuttal for those points. You were silent. You were schooled on critical thinking and you had no comeback.

Yeah, both Joyce and her husband could be a little nutty. There's nothing weird about that. It's far more likely than a species of giant bipedal non-human primate living, sleeping, eating, pooping, humping, and dying all over the continent without having a single type specimen to look at. Do, you get it, Sweaty? Do you understand? Is this thing on? Do you see how your logic is failing? Hello, McFly?

Who knows? Joyce could be a little out of it, her husband could be a little gullible, and the daughter might not feel like dealing with idiot parents. You don't know. She might be the weird daughter of a weird women and back up her mom's kooky story. She might off-handedly back up the story just because she doesn't feel like engaging her mother's mental health problems with some stranger on the phone. What is the matter with you? Why can't you understand this? It's not reliable evidence. It's not good. It's not strong. It doesn't have great weight or a high probability. There's is no way of establishing whether it was far more likely to be caused by a real Bigfoot than some mundane explanation. Do you get it? Yes or no.
 
SweatyYeti said:
"Now why would the husband support his wife's story, if his own daughter told him it wasn't true??? That doesn't make any sense to me......does it make any sense to you??
I mean....they all live in the same house....the father must have talked to the daughter about this incredible sighting. It seems to me that we only have 2 choices here.....either the daughter agreed with Joyce's version of the sighting....or both Joyce and her husband are a little nutty."
Click to expand...

This kind of investigating is complicated by human social behavior. The husband's support of his wife does not tell us if Bigfoot exists. It tells us that spousal support exists. Human nature is such that the husband may strongly doubt his wife's encounter yet act like he believes her - so that their relationship is not stressed. The daughter is part of the social triangle.

The investigation is further complicated by their understanding that what they say to you could end up in public view. It did.

Bigfootery is almost entirely based upon people believing the testimony of other people. The ultimate foundation is the classic Bigfoot encounter story - I saw one! This is fleshed out into a short story giving details of the event. Even when secondary physical evidence (such as cast footprints) accompanies the story it still requires believing the witness. They could be fabricating the whole thing, or portions of it. They could intentionally omit information that might indicate that they did not encounter a Bigfoot. Bigfootery exists because people take the story as being legitimate.

Bigfootery is a self-perpetuating hobby belief cult. That is true even if Bigfoot does exist.
 
William Parcher said:
Bigfootery is almost entirely based upon people believing the testimony of other people. The ultimate foundation is the classic Bigfoot encounter story - I saw one! This is fleshed out into a short story giving details of the event. Even when secondary physical evidence (such as cast footprints) accompanies the story it still requires believing the witness. They could be fabricating the whole thing, or portions of it. They could intentionally omit information that might indicate that they did not encounter a Bigfoot. Bigfootery exists because people take the story as being legitimate.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the whole modern bigfoot craze started off in the 50s by someone producing a footprint cast?
 
The San Francisco Zoo should put up a new exhibit.
Nothing too fancy...
Just a big square cubical, full of thick pines and maybe a little creek flowing through it.
Adding nothing else, keeping it plain and simple.
They can post a sign... void of any information,
with no hints for curious visitors, of what may be occupying this dwelling.
So people can draw their own conclusions.
I wonder how many will walk away thinking it's empty.

"thanx arthwollipot for the compliment"
 
SweatyYeti said:
I'll comment on your "answers" tomorrow.
Click to expand...
:s2:
(you are not the only one who can use smileys).

SweatyYeti said:
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...
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm pretty aware of my own thoughts.
And I am also pretty aware of your tendency to distort and cherry-pick quotes.

That's why I ask for the original sentences within their original context.

SweatyYeti said:
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"?
Click to expand...
It is possible to carry a qualitative evaluation if the propper methodology is used. To this date, as far as I'm concerned, no such methodology was used or created within bigfootery. To this date, the methods used within bigfootery, which I am aware of, are driven by emotion, gut feelings, "will-to-believe" and similar. In a nutshell - a conclusion (bigfeet are real) is the starting point and from this point evidence pieces are selected based on the investigator's preconceived notions of what bigfeet are.

Please allow me to use this opportunity to remind you that you still have not managed to propperly address the following issues (among others):

- 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!')
 
kitakaze said:
I disagree that simply being clear, focused, and detailed automatically gives a video a very high probability or even proves it was of a real Bigfoot. Who made it? Where did it come? What were the conditions of it's filming and coming to public attention? I can easily envision a scenario involving an effects company being involved in a hoax video. It's happened before.
Click to expand...


I disagree with that, completely.

ALL the pictures, and videos, of men-in-suits that I've ever seen (Edited to add: "ALL the pictures and videos with a fair degree of detail to them...I'm not refering to blobsquatch videos) look obviously, and unambiguously like men-in-suits, including the more elaborate suits.
This would be especially true of a video of a 'm-i-s' which is very clear, sharp, and detailed.
Still pictures are obvious enough...but when a suit is seen in motion, there's simply no doubt whatsoever that it's a walking suit.


One rule to keep in mind, concerning 'Men-in-suits':

Men-in-suits LOOK like Men-in-suits............always. ;)
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
*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
Click to expand...
Oh, close-minded sheeple! Behold the truth as it was revealed for me!

Hundreds of millions of years ago, Mars was home to a technologically advanced civilization of sentient insect-like arthropods. These creatures built vast structures to host their colonies, some of them pyramidal, over Mars - their remains were imaged by NASA. Despite physically weak, these insectoids were highly powerfull when it comes to what we call paranormal powers; their communications were made mostly through telepathy and telekinesis was also common. They could also "store" their souls for a certain ammount of time within their own dead bodies or at certain equipments. A a certain point in their history, they realized that their world was changing - it would soon be too barren and hostile to them. Their technology was not advanced enough to avoid these changes.

Their response was to move a small pioneer group to Earth - selected queens and a number of breeders and workers who would start new colonies so their species would be saved. The colony ships arrived and they started to genetically-engineer from australopithecines a new race of workers, since their bodies were not adapted to Earth's gravity. The result was what is nowadays called bigfoot. They are intelligent and have strong psi powers, since their original masters needed telepathic communication and skilled workers capable of accomplishing complex tasks.

But the insectoids' plans failed; Martian climate change came too soon and hardware failures plagued their colony ships. At this very point they also attempted to enslave humans; the small psi level of humans made them harder to controll. Later, when contact was lost with Mars, the insectoids' power dimmed even further and their mind control over their bigfeet slaves decreased. Rebellion was inevitable; and their slaves fled. In time, the colonies died, becoming deeply buried under sediments, lava flows or the seas. The souls of the insectoids lasted longer, attempting to summon slaves to restore their colonies (by then known as sacred or haunted grounds), but their powers were decreasing constantly. The only memory we humans have of the insectoids are twisted and veiled - images of evil creatures, the roots of demon imagery- antennae interpreted as long horns. Occasional contact with their energies is still possible for some people at some places. As for bigfeet - the original brutal slaves the insectoids used to build colossal pyramids whose tips are the only part not yet buried by the sands of time- we remember them as giants such as the nephelim of the Bible.

Bigfeet scattered across all the Earth once fred from their master's control. For this, they took advantage of their genetically-engineered psi powers, and these skills are the reason for the link between bigfeet and paranormality. Red (or green) glowing eyes, telepathic communication, fear sensations inflicted over some of those who see (or are near) them (confused with infrasounds by those who refuse to see psi is real), the very difficulty of seeing a bigfoot (which brings some to think they are invisible) - that's all due to the genetic manipulations the Martians carried out when created bigfeet species.

BEAT THIS!!!!
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
I disagree with that, completely.

ALL the pictures, and videos, of men-in-suits that I've ever seen look obviously, and unambiguously like men-in-suits, including the more elaborate suits.
This would be especially true of a video of a 'm-i-s' which is very clear, sharp, and detailed.
Still pictures are obvious enough...but when a suit is seen in motion, there's simply no doubt whatsoever that it's a walking suit.


One rule to keep in mind, concerning 'Men-in-suits':

Men-in-suits LOOK like Men-in-suits............always. ;)
Click to expand...

Not ALL the videos of Men in Suits look, to you, like men in suits. I can think of one glaring example.

Correa- I have to disagree with your Martian timeline, since there are still galactic meetings taking place ON or WITHIN Mars, and since the Bigfeet are still members in good standing, I don't think you can establish that Mars has lost it's viability. Sure they hide stuff from our cameras and probes, but sometimes certain things become uncovered, i.e. the face, the pyramids, and once in a while, our cameras catch the bigfeet above ground. One of the things that the Bigfeet are tasked to do, is covering up the things that become uncovered by the solar winds. That is why we catch them on the surface once in a while.
 
Last edited:
They still live there, under domes and inside big caves... Rarely venture to the surface. Its nothing but a pale shadow of the might empire and rich ecosystems which once thrived there.
 
Drewbot wrote:
Sure they hide stuff from our cameras and probes, but sometimes certain things become uncovered, i.e. the face, the pyramids,
Click to expand...


....the odd object, here and there...:)...


mars22.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
Drewbot wrote:



....the odd object, here and there...:)...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/mars22.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Right-
That is called "Eagle Catching Snake" and it is larger than the Cheops pyramid in Gaza, Egypt.
 
Last edited:
Sweaty, I took the liberty of putting your posts in the proper thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4210423#post4210423

Maybe you can get some interesting response outside of me and the other skeptics participating in this thread. Since you are taking the time to post in favour of Martian civilization I will ask again:

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?

These are not difficult questions so I hope you won't continue to refuse to answer.
 
Correa Neto said:
(snip)

BEAT THIS!!!!
Click to expand...

You have clearly beaten me... in the imagination department! Zing!

So where are the insectoid sightings? I'm not seeing them. Did my reptoids eat your insectoids like an iguana on a cricket?

See, the horned beings are not interpretations of insectoids, they're horned beings. The satyrs, satan things, Japanese oni, Jersey Devils, centaurs too; they're early phase genetic skunk works. Possibly some type of agility/combat/movement vector tinkerings. They may use Earth as some type of backwater Groom Lake facility where at different stages they experiment with various phases of genetic manipulants to be used in conflicts in other systems. It may be that in the last 60 years the need for apeman variant has greatly increased do to conflict on a world that forested and mountainous.

But would they use crossbows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom