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

[Drewbot]

Check out this statement by Greg....

I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist.... anywhere in the world."

Can you please provide the citation which describes the evidence which indicates (with any degree of likliness) the existence of such a creature?

You could also substitute- Fairies, Man-Bear-Pig, Tyrannasaurus Rex, Death Worms, & Sea Serpents for Bigfoot if you'd like.

"Well, can you describe to me what it looked like, Mrs. Mudwumple?"

"Why sure, officer...it's a little hard to describe.....but, I'd say it looked like a cross between Smokey the Bear, Koko the Gorilla, and Bob Dylan".....it creeped me out somethin' awful!""

We have as much evidence to back up her description, as we do to back-up the description of Bigfoot as a Hairy, Bipedal (sometimes 4x4), 5-Toed (Sometimes 4), Primate, with a Saggital Crest, and Breasts which protrude from it's Belly. So why aren't there any Dylan-Bear-Ape groups? That is the question.

 

[JohnWS]

Hey, I'll tell you what. Let's forget that King Kong is a just movie and analyse the subject of a short part of the film with little detail shown, since that alone can tell us a lot about the likelihood of whether it's a man-in-a-suit, or a real wild animal.

Just look at the impressive musculature of 'Mighty Joe Young' (1949) .

Image copyright Don Shay '81.

 

[captain koolaid]

Can you please provide the citation which describes the evidence which indicates (with any degree of likliness) the existence of such a creature?

You could also substitute- Fairies, Man-Bear-Pig, Tyrannasaurus Rex, Death Worms, & Sea Serpents for Bigfoot if you'd like.

Hey. Don't belittle the real Boss of The Woods. Members of HACK (Hunters Against Carnosaur Karnage) are busting their humps in the field. What have you ever done to eliminate the threat to careless Footers? This sort of attitude is to be expected from skeptics, I suppose. What is really disappointing is Sweaty's refusal to join the cause.

 

[kitakaze]

Why would you get so worked-up over the fact that I posted a link to an article which I thought made reference to some DNA testing of potential Bigfoot hair samples?
The article mentions "lab examination of hair samples", and I thought that was refering to DNA analysis.

Here is a paragraph from the article:

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.

So, what exactly is the big deal here, that you're obsessing over??

Wow! Sweaty, you finally answered #1. Here is your answer in that post:

The article mentions "lab examination of hair samples", and I thought that was refering to DNA analysis.

How long did it take you to write that 17 word sentence?

I find it fascinating that you took the kind of time it would take to quote various responses to your continued evasion and implied that you don't evade skeptics. You know, considering it took four pages of dogged effort to get that 17 word reply.

Now, you would like to know what the big deal is. The point being made here is that you are a bad source for information regarding quality Bigfoot evidence. The point being made is that you are a prime example of why Bigfoot enthusiasts aren't taken seriously. We asked for reliable evidence and in response to the part about DNA from hair you gave us a story that refers in no way to DNA testing. The article doesn't even feature the acronym "DNA" anywhere in it. Every single page of this thread points that out to you. Even when it was pointed out to you, you didn't get it and acted like others were being stupid.

Remember this post of yours where I point that out and you question my reading comprehension. Priceless moment in the SweatyYeti faceplant collection. Check it out:

kitakaze wrote;

Absolutely wrong? How so?

Read my post again, in which I explained exactly why you were wrong.

I had no problem understanding everything I have quoted.

But you had a major problem understanding what I wrote.

Again...Correa wrote this:

[QUOTE]Got any of the above?[/QUOTE]

You would agree, I assume, that that line referred to this specification of one type of 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.

In that line, quoted above....nothing is said about "reliable DNA".....only "DNA".

You would agree with that, I ASSume.

So................putting it all together........Correa asked me if there was any "DNA evidence".

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.


I realize it's extremely hard for you to understand this, kitty....but Correa asked if there were specific types of evidence (Got any of the above?")....and I responded with a link to an article about some evidence.

Yeah, what an ASS I was. Again, sarcastic responses have more oomph when you're pants are in the "up" position.

Now let's get to how your misunderstanding shows the poorly informed nature of your opinions regarding quality Bigfoot evidence. Again, you said:

The article mentions "lab examination of hair samples", and I thought that was refering to DNA analysis.

Ah, yes. You thought you were looking at a reference to a DNA analysis based on the words "laboratory examination". Let's have a look at that line again:

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.”

That is what made Sweaty think he had some ammo for the reliable evidence quest. But hold the phone... Sweaty thinks he's looking at a DNA analysis that shows the wild man is in between bears or apes and human beings? Bears? What the heck kind of DNA are we looking at!? Could there be something to this bearbigfoot idea after all? If we use Sweaty's standards then I think there is. You thought you were looking at DNA testing and the mention of the animal family Ursidae didn't get your antennae up. Not to mention that the sentence immediately following the one with the words "laboratory experimentation" talks about chemical properties of the hair samples showing qualities abnormal for humans and recognized primates. Isn't it interesting how your excuse about your poor fact-checking even further demonstrates the point without you realizing it?

Sweaty fumbles again.

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty has answered #1 and #2 on my list of 3 items for Sweaty response. For #1 Sweaty admitted that he poorly fact-checked the article on purported yeren hairs. For #2 he admitted that a well informed opinion is more valuable than one that is not. When he addresses #3 I will cut and paste my responses to his 5 questions I earlier mentioned. I do think, however, that some reciprocation is in order for Sweaty finally mustering the incredible effort that it took to give a 17 word response to #1. Here are some recent questions of Sweaty's including ones that he says skeptics are afraid or refuse to answer:

If the subject of the Patterson Film is a real, live, wild animal...is it a Bear?

I don't think so.

Is Ray's opinion....that "Bigfoot (if it does exist) may actually be some type of animal other than a Primate"....a well-informed and factually supported opinion?

Yes. Emphasis on the word "may." Bigfoot as traditionally described to us by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate but this is not the only option. There are significant anomalies that present themselves. Primates have five digits on each limb. Evidence that footers tells us supports Bigfoot in many cases points to something with less or more than five digits such as the numerous cases of four-toed prints in the southern United States. That is not in fitting with a primate or we have consistent mutations affecting the number of digits. Of course that isn't taking into account the most likely explanation in which all footprints are accounted for by hoax and misidentification.

1) Can the subject of the PG Film possibly be a real, live Bigfoot?

Yes but the probability is extremely low. Quoting that sentence but cutting out everything but the word "yes" would be very Sweaty. If Patty really is a real live animal I think it would be some bizarre primate that has the ridiculous aspect of looking just like a really bad suit.

2) Can the subject of the PG Film possibly be a real, live Bear?

For all intents and purposes I don't think so but one could always argue semantic about the use of the word "possibly."

3) Can a real, live Bigfoot possibly be a real, live Bear?

Same answer as above. We do know that there are many examples of bear tracks being mistaken by footers for Bigfoot prints but that is not what you're asking.

 

[Correa Neto]

Thank you for shooting your own foot again!

Absolutely, GT!

Check out this statement by Greg....




....yup...100% Pure open-minded thinking.

But hey, you gotta give it to these skeptics......really, cause when it comes to something like a Bear/Ape/Human kind-of creature....something which has, up until a couple of days ago, been completely unheard of... anywhere in the world....Correa's got the OPEN-minded thinking for that...





"Well, can you describe to me what it looked like, Mrs. Mudwumple?"

"Why sure, officer...it's a little hard to describe.....but, I'd say it looked like a cross between Smokey the Bear, Koko the Gorilla, and Bob Dylan".....it creeped me out somethin' awful!""

Way to go Sweaty!

Can't beat your oponents' arguments?
Try an obfuscation maneauver by distorting and misquoting them while evading the actual issues (don't forget to add a couple of smileys)! Hopefully someone who happened to stumble only at your posts will believe in you... Its possible, right?

Ooops, unfortunately, 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 would describe flipper? Or a Thylacosmilus, or a tasmanian tiger? Has she ever heard about chalicotheres?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

2) Can the subject of the PG Film possibly be a real, live Bear?

For all intents and purposes I don't think so but one could always argue semantic about the use of the word "possibly."

A real answer to that question would be a "Yes" or a "No"...with as much of an explanation as you like, after it.....rather than a non-committal, middle-of-the-road answer such as "I don't think so". That is, for all practical purposes, a non-answer. (We could call it an evasion! )

When I wrote that question, I used the word "Bear" in the sense of 'any present-day living species of Bear'.....not 'a species of Bear which branched off from the modern-day line, millions of years ago'.

I wrote the question before Correa wrote this:

What about a genus which evolved, say, from bears?

The obvious correct answer is that Patty could not possibly be a Black bear, or a Grizzly Bear.
Any simpleton can see that...only a blind skeptic cannot.

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty,

Please answer this yes or no question.

Is there any reliable evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot aka Sasquatch, Foot-ape.?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty,

Please answer this yes or no question.

Is there any reliable evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot aka Sasquatch, Foot-ape.?

Well, first...in the absence of a concise definition of "reliable evidence" by kitakaze, or anyone else...I'll answer your question in terms of "strong-to-very strong evidence" (which I think is the essence of their definition).

In my opinion...YES, there is very strong evidence (possibly "reliable evidence"?), indicating a very high degree of likelihood, that Bigfoot does exist in North America.

For right now, just two quick examples of what I consider very strong evidence...the PG Film, and Joyce's and her daughter's Bigfoot sighting report in Upstate N.Y.

I may have time later tonight to elaborate on that a little.

 

[tyr_13]

kitakaze wrote:



A real answer to that question would be a "Yes" or a "No"...with as much of an explanation as you like, after it.....rather than a non-committal, middle-of-the-road answer such as "I don't think so". That is, for all practical purposes, a non-answer. (We could call it an evasion! )

When I wrote that question, I used the word "Bear" in the sense of 'any present-day living species of Bear'.....not 'a species of Bear which branched off from the modern-day line, millions of years ago'.

I wrote the question before Correa wrote this:



The obvious correct answer is that Patty could not possibly be a Black bear, or a Grizzly Bear.
Any simpleton can see that...only a blind skeptic cannot.

What a bunch of non-existent, imaginary Sasquatch ****. Bigfoot could be a primate with no fossil evidence, but not a bear with no fossil evidence. Wow. And why do you always pull that, 'evasive' bull when you don't like someone's answer? Maybe is a valid answer, especially when someone explains after when it would and wouldn't be possible. More over, your question on the PG film has nothing to do with it because even if it is a 'real' bigfoot, bigfoot could still be of the ursine family.

So if someone logically lays out what they are saying, they are being evasive? Stop the dumb accusation. You have no audience to play it up to. That only works when you have a base biased to believe you and who won't check it out. Most of us hear will reread a post or two to see how deceptive you are being.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Bigfoot as traditionally described to us by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate but this is not the only option.

What you guys mistakenly think is a poorly constructed suit is really the floppy skin associated with a pouch, which is where this beast carries its young after they hatch from their eggs. ETA: This is why they are not really primates or bears.

Speaking of eggs, this is why bigfoot beasts are so hard to find. They look for great hiding places because of all the time they spend warming their eggs The big feet help distribute the weight while squatting, but they still have arch problems, which is why some of the footprints are so odd.

And speaking of squatting, this is another reason they are so hard to spot. They have a low profile during much of the warmer months. Also, the term sasquatch has the word "squat" right in it, but few people have ever made the connection.

If you need anything else cleared up, just ask.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, first...in the absence of a concise definition of "reliable evidence" by kitakaze, or anyone else...I'll answer your question in terms of "strong-to-very strong evidence" (which I think is the essence of their definition).

This thread has no shortage of explanations of what reliable evidence is. Sweaty's closing his eyes and sticking his fingers in his ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you," doesn't change that fact.

In my opinion...YES, there is very strong evidence (possibly "reliable evidence"?), indicating a very high degree of likelihood, that Bigfoot does exist in North America.

For right now, just two quick examples of what I consider very strong evidence...the PG Film, and Joyce's and her daughter's Bigfoot sighting report in Upstate N.Y.

I may have time later tonight to elaborate on that a little.

In response to a question about reliable evidence Sweaty comes back with the PGF and an anecdote.

Joyce's anecdote of a 1983 Bigfoot encounter with her daughter at the corner of Rt. 203 and State Farm Road in Valatie, New York and a highly suspect film for which the whereabouts of the original is unknown. These two things are very difficult to account for without Bigfoot in fact existing. Explanation by human activity is nowhere near as reasonable. The evidence is strong.

By Sweaty's standards of evidence Bigfoot spans the globe which is visited by alien spacecraft and the ruins of alien civilizations lay across the surface of Mars. It's a magical world you live in, Sweaty.

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5245

 

[kitakaze]

A real answer to that question would be a "Yes" or a "No"...with as much of an explanation as you like, after it.....rather than a non-committal, middle-of-the-road answer such as "I don't think so". That is, for all practical purposes, a non-answer. (We could call it an evasion! )

It's a Sweaty world, people. In a Sweaty world answering a question by saying "I dont think so," is a non-answer and an evasion. However, answering Drew's question with the qualifiers "in my opinion" and "I consider" is A-OK. Perfectly cool, no irony whatsoever. No jumping on the rolleyes smiley necessary.

Doh!

When I wrote that question, I used the word "Bear" in the sense of 'any present-day living species of Bear'.....not 'a species of Bear which branched off from the modern-day line, millions of years ago'.

I wrote the question before Correa wrote this:

What about a genus which evolved, say, from bears?

The obvious correct answer is that Patty could not possibly be a Black bear, or a Grizzly Bear.
Any simpleton can see that...only a blind skeptic cannot.

Hey, lookit lookit lookit! You can see the goalposts scooting right before your very eyes.

ETA: If anyone is wondering what the smell in this thread is it's called "Roast Sweaty."

 

[GT/CS]

What you guys mistakenly think is a poorly constructed suit is really the floppy skin associated with a pouch, which is where this beast carries its young after they hatch from their eggs. ETA: This is why they are not really primates or bears.

Speaking of eggs, this is why bigfoot beasts are so hard to find. They look for great hiding places because of all the time they spend warming their eggs The big feet help distribute the weight while squatting, but they still have arch problems, which is why some of the footprints are so odd.

And speaking of squatting, this is another reason they are so hard to spot. They have a low profile during much of the warmer months. Also, the term sasquatch has the word "squat" right in it, but few people have ever made the connection.

If you need anything else cleared up, just ask.

I like it!

It may still need a little tweaking but it's a great start - maybe worthy of its own thread.

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr13 wrote:

Bigfoot could be a primate with no fossil evidence, but not a bear with no fossil evidence. Wow.

"Wow" is right!

There is a huge difference in those 2 scenarios.

Bigfoot could very reasonably be a Primate, without fossils, since Bigfoot represents only a slight variation of other known primates, sharing traits with both Apes and Man. It would be a relatively recent branch off of the Primate line.

Bigfoot could not reasonably belong to the Bear/dog family, because there aren't any fossils of ANYTHING that represents an intermediate form, between the "Carnivora" Order and an animal fitting the common description of a Bigfoot (Ape-Man) ....and neither are there any living intermediate forms.

There is... in fact....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, living or dead, that indicates a creature fitting the description of an upright-walking Primate evolved from a Bear, or a Doggy.


If that did actually happen, tyr baby....then there's a whole, complete, big, FAT branch of the evolutionary tree MISSING.

Get it?



It's funny...the "skeptics" here say that Footers "believe" in Bigfoot, based on pure emotion, rather than reason....but in reality, it's the skeptics who are proposing a complete, 'make-believe group' of animals, based on NOTHING....absolutely NOTHING, in the way of evidence!


If that statement is wrong...I challenge a skeptic here to put-up some evidence for this missing group of Bear/Primates.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

However, answering Drew's question with the qualifiers "in my opinion"

Yes, kitty...Drew asked me for my opinion, and I gave him my opinion...expressing my opinion as......my opinion.

While I'm on the subject of my opinion...I think you have a serious problem.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What you guys mistakenly think is a poorly constructed suit is really the floppy skin associated with a pouch, which is where this beast carries its young after they hatch from their eggs. ETA: This is why they are not really primates or bears.

That's crazy talk. If it lays eggs it must be a monotreme, but if it has a pouch it would be a marsupial. Everyone knows a bipedal half-Echidna, half-Wombat, half-Human, half-Gorilla is impossible!

 

[Uncayimmy]

That's crazy talk. If it lays eggs it must be a monotreme, but if it has a pouch it would be a marsupial. Everyone knows a bipedal half-Echidna, half-Wombat, half-Human, half-Gorilla is impossible!

That's so typical of you Science as a Religion types. I am presenting a unifying theory, yet you reject it. My theory explains so much.

Why don't we see them? Because they spend so much time squatting on their eggs.

Why are the footprints goofy? Fallen arches from squatting.

Why are they so big? They have dinosaur DNA. Some posit that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Clearly they laid eggs. We already have marsupials. Bigfoot as an egg-laying giant marsupial is not without precedent.

Why don't we ever see them? Their very survival depends on hiding extremely well while during their long periods of squatting. Fits right in with evolution, or don't you believe in that?

Why don't we ever see a baby bigfoot? Two words: Pouches.

Why the strange way of walking? Again, pouches, sometimes with their young in them.

Why do they look like they are wearing suits? Pouches.

Why do the mournful howls? Wouldn't you if you had to spend so much time squatting on fallen arches?

Why the foul smell? No time for bathing with all the squatting. Reproduction trumps cleanliness every time.

Why no hair samples? They collect fallen hair for warming the eggs and creating soft places in the pouches.

Open your eyes, people.

 

[tyr_13]

tyr13 wrote:



"Wow" is right!

There is a huge difference in those 2 scenarios.

Bigfoot could very reasonably be a Primate, without fossils, since Bigfoot represents only a slight variation of other known primates, sharing traits with both Apes and Man. It would be a relatively recent branch off of the Primate line.

Bigfoot could not reasonably belong to the Bear/dog family, because there aren't any fossils of ANYTHING that represents an intermediate form, between the "Carnivora" Order and an animal fitting the common description of a Bigfoot (Ape-Man) ....and neither are there any living intermediate forms.

Modern bear prints look remarkably like bigfoot prints. For you footers that's evidence enough isn't it? It's all you have so far, bad film and print casts. Of course to call bigfoot a 'slight variation' of known primates also shows how little you really know about primates. The most likely relative is extremely different with no fossil record of ever being in most of the places bf is spotted.

You don't even know how ridiculous saying bf exists in the first place is, so how can you be expected to see how close a leap of logic it is to say it isn't necessarily a primate. As an example, I'll fix your paragraph to show you.

"Bigfoot could not reasonably belong to the Bear/dog family primate group, because there aren't any fossils of ANYTHING that represents an intermediate form, between the "Carnivora" Order primate groups and an animal fitting the common description of a Bigfoot (Ape-Man) super strong, ultra stealthy, hugely larger than other primates ....and neither are there any living intermediate forms."

There is... in fact....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, living or dead, that indicates a creature fitting the description of an upright-walking Primate evolved from a Bear, or a Doggy.


If that did actually happen, tyr baby....then there's a whole, complete, big, FAT branch of the evolutionary tree MISSING.

Get it?

Yes, I get it. You have very little knowledge of primates and other mammals.

It's funny...the "skeptics" here say that Footers "believe" in Bigfoot, based on pure emotion, rather than reason....but in reality, it's the skeptics who are proposing a complete, 'make-believe group' of animals, based on NOTHING....absolutely NOTHING, in the way of evidence!

The difference is that footers at least go the extra mile to find very, very poor evidence, and use a rubber mallet to make other stuff fit (or just make stuff up/hoax it). We aren't proposing a make believe group of animals. We say bigfoot probably doesn't exist. Unless you are talking about bears, which do exist by the way.

If that statement is wrong...I challenge a skeptic here to put-up some evidence for this missing group of Bear/Primates.

There isn't any, just like there isn't any for a bigfoot. That was the entire point. I know you like to ignore that, and try to make it out like we really believe bigfoot is a bear, but you're trying to twist it in a way it just won't go. The more you try to make people with perfectly logical arguments look stupid, the sillier you appear (and more petty, deceptive, etc.).

Let me say it again so that when you try to twist what I have said later people can find it more easily....

There isn't any evidence that bigfoot is a bear, just like there isn't any good evidence that bigfoot exists.

Maybe it is just a mis-communication...so I'll add one of those emoticons you like so much.

Better?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's so typical of you Science as a Religion types. I am presenting a unifying theory, yet you reject it. My theory explains so much.

Hilarious! And garnering a TLA nomination on your 20th post bodes well for your future contributions here.