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

[kitakaze]

A topic that would frequently come up in the 411 PGF thread is the concept of reliable evidence versus proof regarding Bigfoot. Forum member SweatyYeti has made constant attempts to portray these things as being one and the same. He tells us that as skeptics all that will facilitate our taking Bigfoot seriously is proof in the form of a body and at that time it will be irrelevant what we think of it.

What we tell Sweaty time and time again is that this is not the case and that reliable evidence for Bigfoot would certainly get our attention. That's where the problem starts.

Over a month ago on August 14th I made a post addressed to Sweaty that very clearly defines the difference between reliable evidence and proof regarding Bigfoot. For well over a month I have been making repeated requests to Sweaty to address the post and he has in return made repeated posts saying that he will get to it soon, tomorrow, on the weekend, later, eventually. He has expended more effort saying he will get to it than it would actually take to give some rebuttal to that post.

Here is that post:

Sweaty, I'd like to apologize for not getting to your post earlier but I've been preoccupied with my trip home to Japan. I have thought about our exchange regarding your question about reliable evidence for Bigfoot without Bigfoot. I answered that there could be no such evidence if Bigfoot did in fact not exist. I think to be accurate we should be saying "yes, but it's extremely unlikely."

For a certainty there are countless examples in the history of scientific inquiry where we have had a body of evidence supporting a particular hypothesis or theory that needed to be revised or discarded because of the discovery of new conflicting evidence. And, to be sure, that is not the type of situation we're discussing here regarding Bigfoot. It's important that we remember we're not going to get into arguing a negative. You should know better than to ask us what evidence we have that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Let's cover the basics, shall we?

Proof vs Reliable Evidence of Bigfoot

1) Proof -

Proof regarding the existence of Bigfoot should be a no-brainer. What is required is a type specimen or a significant portion of one. In other words we need a body or enough of one that allows us to make a clear determination of what it is.

Why don't we have this? Why don't we have a type specimen for what is alleged to be one of the biggest land mammals in North America that we are told inhabits the four corners of the continent and between? For a creature that acts as brazen as we are often told it does this thing should have been stuffed and mounted many many times over.

2) Reliable Evidence -

Reliable evidence of Bigfoot, I'm sure you'll recall, is that which is very difficult to account for without the animal in fact existing. Let's be clear that very difficult does not mean impossible. Let's review what should constitute reliable evidence.

Let's imagine for a moment a scenario where we actually did in fact have documented examples of alleged Bigfoot tracks that displayed successive matching dermatoglyphics. Well, right off the bat trying to explain them as casting artifacts goes out the window. Now let's say that on top of that more than one person who could be considered an expert on primate dermatoglyphics examined the tracks and the findings of these experts were subjected to peer review, at the end of which we could satisfactorily rule out hoaxing and that the patterns in the tracks are inconsistent with those of humans.

Is that proof of Bigfoot? For some hopeful believers, maybe, but certainly not to those whose opinions matter. Not without a type specimen, as in some Bigfoot feet to look at. And yes, once we have had some Bigfoot feet to look at the spore become absolutely acceptable evidence for the presence of the creature. Not before.

How about some other things that would qualify as reliable evidence for Bigfoot? I know you haven't forgotten that video taken under the right circumstances would be great. A video of a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating its liver or making poopy from the right people and things are looking up.

And speaking of poop, you as a PGF fan should be able to have some input on this. 'Fingers bend' Patty seems to have a very robust jaw and a pronounced sagittal crest reminiscent of a gorilla(unless you like Medrum's suggestion that it's just her do). Yes, I know, the skeptics call modified gorilla suit and Patty fans say upright ape. Let's spot the Patty fans. But wait... All that chewing equipment like a gorilla should point to a gorilla-like diet full of tough vegetation. You know, the type that you hang around a lot base your movements on its location. Anyway, I guess you'd end up pooping a lot like a gorilla too. Where's the poop, dude?

Or maybe they do eat a significant amount of meat, like salmon and deer an juicy rabbits. They must leave some very unique kills. Those would be great to look at.

And the hair! These shaggy beasts - we're in no shortage of claims of nests and tree breaks and dens. We shouldn't be having this paucity of hair to examine, one would think. I know they don't prove bigfoot exists and even if the DNA does come up as inconclusive some consistency in a sample base would be a great start. I know you wouldn't try a Henner reference, right?

So where does that leave us? Well since we have none of those things or anything else that qualifies as evidence that is very difficult to account for without a species of massive bipedal non-human primate currently existing in North America, it looks very much like Bigfoot can stay on the shelf between the Greys and chupacabra in the social construct/modern myth section of the woo emporium.

The final conclusion IMO is that in the case of proof and reliable evidence it is absolutely reasonable to expect to have both as Joycefoot is described to us. We can also consider the lack thereof to leave us with a claim on par with those regarding extraterrestrial spacecraft visiting Earth and ancient ruins on Mars, which, as most of us are well aware of by now, Sweaty is a believer of.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3944783#post3944783

The bottom line is that reliable evidence and proof are not synonymous but as Bigfoot is described to us by Bigfoot enthusiasts we should absolutely have both. It is absurd that we do not.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Just a quick, short reply for now....concerning your use of the phrase "reliable evidence".

I'll elaborate on it later.....someday......when I have the time to......and I'm all psyched-up for it.


But for now....


Basically, the fact that you've stated that "reliable evidence" does not guarantee that Bigfoot exists...i.e....is not proof of Bigfoot's existence....means that any evidence which you deem "reliable" is nothing more than just "plain old evidence". The only difference would be the weight (degree of probability)it carries.

There is, in fact, no special type, or category of evidence (short of "proof") which is "reliable", for anything......except to say that there is a "probability" that Bigfoot exists.

'Reliable' evidence indicates only a 'degree of probability' that Bigfoot exists....not a 'certainty'......and whether it's a 50% probability, or a 99% probability, doesn't matter.
We can't rely on that evidence to state that Bigfoot definitely exists.

 

[Mad Hom]

1.)Footprints aren't "reliable" without the actual feet known to make them.

2.)Blood curdling yodels in the dead of night aren't "reliable" without seeing the actual animal perform them at least once.

3.)Nests aren't "reliable" without the animal that makes them.

4.)Tree knocking...see #2

5.) Dermal ridges....see #1

6.) Eyewitness reports aren't "reliable" until we have a known animal to possibily have been seen by said "eyewitness".

7.) Video,Film etc isn't "reliable" until we either get some close up footage of A.)one gnawing on the rib bone of a mule deer for example or B.) of it engaging in an activity other than simply going for a stroll...hunting,running,killing a bear with it's bare hands or hurling a swine some measurable distance

8.) IM index isn't "reliable" until we have a standard measurement from an actual Bigfeet femur to compare it with.

9.) Compliant gait isn't "reliable" until we observe actual Bigfeets strolling along like this in the wild or in captivity.

I could go on and on Sweetsy ol chap...but I'm sure by #9 you've observed a strange pattern to what I've been saying....notice any similarities between each bulletpoint Sweets??

Hmmm?

 

[not daSkeptic]

'Reliable' evidence indicates only a 'degree of probability' that Bigfoot exists....not a 'certainty'......and whether it's a 50% probability, or a 99% probability, doesn't matter.
We can't rely on that evidence to state that Bigfoot definitely exists.

If you're looking for 100% probability you'll never find it. Fundamental rule of science: It is always possible that what one holds as true today may be refuted by new data tomorrow.

 

[LTC8K6]

or hurling a swine some measurable distance

Thanks.

 

[Mad Hom]

Thanks.

You are welcome sir as I to would thoroughly enjoy seeing a Bigfeetsus shotput a pig.

 

[SweatyYeti]

If you're looking for 100% probability you'll never find it.

Fundamental rule of science: It is always possible that what one holds as true today may be refuted by new data tomorrow.

You are absolutely wrong, daSkeptic.


A 'discovery' of a body, of any animal, is completely different from a 'scientific theory'.

Once an animal is discovered....like the Coelacanth, for example....and that discovery is fully accepted as legitimate...( Unlike the "discovery" of a Bigfoot body in Georgia )....it's is a 100% probability that it exists, period.

That 100% probability....that absolute certainty...that PROOF.......is irrevocable.

This is unlike a 'scientific theory', which is open to revision.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Footprints aren't "reliable" without the actual feet known to make them.

Mad Hom is confusing "reliable evidence" with "proof". Something which even the great Kaze did, when he first answered my question concerning "Reliable evidence meaning Bigfoot must exist".


If we did have the actual feet KNOWN to have made the footprints, then we would have PROOF of Bigfoot's existence.

But, as kitakaze has told us......"reliable evidence" is NOT "proof" of Bigfoot's existence.

Therefore, Mad Hom is in a very confused state.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


Mad Hom is confusing "reliable evidence" with "proof". Something which even the great Kaze did, when he first answered my question concerning "Reliable evidence meaning Bigfoot must exist".


If we did have the actual feet KNOWN to have made the footprints, then we would have PROOF of Bigfoot's existence.

But, as kitakaze has told us......"reliable evidence" is NOT "proof" of Bigfoot's existence.

Therefore, Mad Hom is in a very confused state.

Sweetsy you.......just........aren't........getting it.

When I'm out and about in the wilds of Northern Arizona and I see some elk prints I can with confidence believe that they were made by real live elk because I have seen real live elk many,many times.

Same goes for Mountain Lion, Coyote, Pronghorn Antelope, Mule Deer, Javelina, Black Bear and various other real live flesh and blood creatures that I've seen.

Given that Bigfeetsus has not been proven to exist...whenever Bigfeet feet prints are seen by anyone....anywhere....the default position shall be... hoaxery until such time that a real live Stinky Biped of Ridiculous Height is brought in whose feet can be compared to said feetprints.

That's the point Sweetsy.

Feetprints aren't "reliable" because the possibility of hoaxagistics is far to high.

Even if there were just one actual really for really flesh and blood Bigfeetsus specimen discovered EVER we would still have a basis for comparison to match the feetprints to.

In sum: Bigfoot Nation needs a body or failing that clear,unambiguous film of one chucking a hog,or engaging in soemthing remotely resembling a creature engaging in un-human activity (no Sweets...slowly strolling away from a man falling off his horse....doesn't cut it.)

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweetsy you.......just........aren't........getting it.

Mad Hom....you don't get it.


The point of this thread is NOT: "Is there any "Reliable" evidence for Bigfoot's existence?"


The point of the thread IS: The meaning of the phrase "reliable evidence", as it relates to Bigfoot.


Before we can determine whether or not a given piece of evidence for Bigfoot is "reliable", we need to have a CLEAR understanding of what the phrase "reliable evidence" actually means.


To this point, the "skeptics" here....who constantly use the phrase....have not provided a CLEAR explanation of what the phrase actually means.

Here is a CLEAR example of what I'm talking about......


When Kitakaze was asked...

"Can there be "Reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence, without any such creature as Bigfoot existing?"

.....the Great Kaze replied....

"No."


Then.....in a stunning turn of events....the Great (confused) Kaze changed his answer to:

"Yes".

The exact quote from Kitty:

I answered that there could be no such evidence if Bigfoot did in fact not exist. I think to be accurate we should be saying "yes, but it's extremely unlikely."

So......Kitakaze Kon-Fuze-ed is telling us that a piece of "Reliable Evidence" for Bigfoot's existence does not mean that Bigfoot definitely exists. (It's not proof.)

But you.....on the other hand.....are telling us that a piece of "Reliable Evidence" for Bigfeetsus means that Bigfeetsus definitely exists. (It IS proof.)

Quoting you...

Blood curdling yodels in the dead of night aren't "reliable" without seeing the actual animal perform them at least once.

This would constitute "Proof" of Bigfoot's existence.

Footprints aren't "reliable" without the actual feet known to make them.

This would also constitute "Proof".



Sooo......CLEARLY....we have a confused bunch of Skeptics here.


Does "Reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence mean that Bigfoot definitely exists???

Is "reliable evidence" proof of Bigfoot's existence.............or isn't it?



Perhaps you and Kitty should get together, and cook-up a nice, confusing batch of BS to weasel your way out of this mess.

 

[tyr_13]

It would seem you are trying to not understand. The prints can't be considered reliable evidence or proof because we don't know that a bigfoot made them. For them to be either, we would have to have the feet.

Let me say this as plain as I can. The FEET would be proof. That is true. With the feet, the prints would then be reliable evidence, if they matched the feet.

You said, "This would also constitute "Proof"", in regards to the feet, which isn't the freaking point.

Proof is reliable evidence, but not all reliable evidence is proof. A square is a quadrangle, not every quadrangle is a square.

CLEARLY, you are the one confused SweatyYeti. But don't worry, we'll give you all the time in the world to "elaborate on it later.....someday......when I have the time to......and I'm all psyched-up for it," so that you can weasel your way out of this.

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr_13 wrote:

......but not all reliable evidence is proof.

Saying that a piece of evidence can qualify as "reliable evidence", without proof, is the same as saying a piece of "reliable evidence" may not be from a Bigfoot, at all.
Hence...according to you....we can have "reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence without Bigfoot even existing.

Is that true?

 

[tyr_13]

tyr_13 wrote:



Saying that a piece of evidence can qualify as "reliable evidence", without proof, is the same as saying a piece of "reliable evidence" may not be from a Bigfoot, at all.
Hence...according to you....we can have "reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence without Bigfoot even existing.

Is that true?

That is not according to me, you just made that up and attributed it to me. You think anyone falls for that?

Yes, we could have reliable evidence that points to bigfoot existing and have it turn out that it does not exist. The evidence could be misinterpreted or wrong.

 

[Mad Hom]

tyr_13 wrote:



Saying that a piece of evidence can qualify as "reliable evidence", without proof, is the same as saying a piece of "reliable evidence" may not be from a Bigfoot, at all.
Hence...according to you....we can have "reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence without Bigfoot even existing.

Is that true?

Sweetster....if you think that 40-leven-hundred sets of feetprints without a "real" foot to compare them to serves as "reliable" evidence than you sir are beyond help.

Cougar prints are "reliable" evidence of cougar activity mostly because we KNOW cougars exist....geeeesh get a Bigfeet....show the feet and all this goes away...after we KNOW a creature with 20 inch feet actually exists.

Allow me to put it another way....instead of relying on "feetprints" BFR's (Bigfoot Field Rep's) need to put a real concerted effort into trying to get the "foot".

For example the BFRO given their amazing ability to magically come within "tree knocking" distance of Hairy Bipeds virtually EVERY time they hit the bush on whatever number Squatchapalooza safari they're currently on needs to start allowing people to bring firearms....they seemingly can attract Hairy Biped activity at will...so why not get a few crack shots with some night vision scopes up in a tree stand ...huh Sweetsy? Why Not??

A dead Bigfeets...will....shut....us ...up Sweetsy.

Once a Bigfeets has been toe tagged and body bagged....all feet prints will be rendered "reliable" evidence that a Hairy Biped is in the AO.

Why??

Because we have seen the feet that made them....why is that so difficult for you to wrap your head around Sweetster??

Bottom Line Sweet Man....you need an actual creature to have done all of this feetprint leaving....until a real creature has been proven to exist...the default position should be that all these footprints are probably Hoaxerization.

Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.

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

 

[Drewbot]

LTC and MAD HOM-

I dropped a 'Tossing a 200 lb. pig' at BFF the other day.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23799&view=findpost&p=490584

It was mostly in deference to LTC's obsession with such a tactic, but since MH is into it as well...

 

[Correa Neto]

Proof:
1. A specimen. Dead, alive, complete or partial. Frozen costumes do not qualify.

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).

Got any of the above?
Excuses for the absence of evidence can not justify the absence of evidence.

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr 13 wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

Hence...according to you....we can have "reliable evidence" for Bigfoot's existence without Bigfoot even existing.

Is that true?

That is not according to me, you just made that up and attributed it to me.

Yes, we could have reliable evidence that points to bigfoot existing and have it turn out that it does not exist.

This is just TOO funny!!!

First tyr 13 says that I made-up something, and falsely attributed it to him ("That is NOT according to me, you just made that up").........and then, in his very next sentence....he agrees with it!!


Confusion reigns supreme in Skepticland!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Proof:
1. A specimen. Dead, alive, complete or partial. Frozen costumes do not qualify.

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).

Got any of the above?
Excuses for the absence of evidence can not justify the absence of evidence.

Sure do, Correa.

Over the years investigators have collected dozens of alleged Yeren hairs from all around China and through laboratory examination have found that “the wild man is in the middle between bears or apes and human beings.”

Physicists at Fudan University, studying samples from all over China, found that the proportion of iron to zinc was 50 times that found in human hair and seven times that in the hair of recognized primates.

Other studies of note have concluded that the hair was neither human nor known primate hair but from an unrecognized primate with a morphological affinity to humans, which seems to be congruent with witness descriptions of the creature.

Link to article:

http://paranormala.com/tale-chinese-wildman/



As for #3) "Fossil remains of a bigfoot-like creature in North America.."


Since Bigfoot's possible existence is NOT limited to just North America, we can happily include Asia in your requirement for "reliable evidence".

Gigantopithecus is known to have existed, and it fits the basic description of BIG-foot.
The only question is whether or not it was bipedal......but, since the shape of the jawbone points towards an upright posture, it is evidence (and being a fossil, it's "reliable") of an upright-walking BIG-footed Primate.

 

[tyr_13]

tyr 13 wrote:




This is just TOO funny!!!

First tyr 13 says that I made-up something, and falsely attributed it to him ("That is NOT according to me, you just made that up").........and then, in his very next sentence....he agrees with it!!


Confusion reigns supreme in Skepticland!

Wow, just wow. This only confuses you. I didn't say it until I said it. How is that confusing? I guess if you get confused over reliable evidence and proof than that is no different.

You accurately predicting my stance is separate from me actually having the stance. Your assumption was the problem. The irony is even deeper than you know.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

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

Having the same 'dermal ridges' in consecutive prints doesn't mean that the prints were made by a real Bigfoot.
A hoaxer could carve dermal ridges into a fake foot, if he felt like putting the time and effort into it.

That being the case...your "reliable" evidence cannot be "relied on" to say that Bigfoot definitely exists.

And so, we're left with varying degrees of "probabilities"......aren't we?