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

[Uncayimmy]

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

Is the Pope Catholic? Yes.

Does a bear poop in the woods? Yes.

Have we found an definitive proof of bigfoot poop in the woods? No.

Thus, bigfoot is not a bear.

Q.E.D.

 

[Brainache]

Is the Pope Catholic? Yes.

Does a bear poop in the woods? Yes.

Have we found an definitive proof of bigfoot poop in the woods? No.

Thus, bigfoot is not a bear.

Q.E.D.

I liked your marsupial monotreme idea.

I can imagine a kind of giant forrest Wallaby. They have big feet and can stand up quite tall. Science is still discovering new species of kangaroos,* but a giant sqatting furry North American Echidna** is a whole different kettle of enchiladas.






*http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0207_020607_lost_world.html
**http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070718-echidna.html

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr13 wrote:

We aren't proposing a make-believe group of animals.
We say bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

You're completely lost, tyr..........I'm happy to say!

My original statement on the BFF, which I recently re-posted here, (and this whole debate is centered around) was this:

Bigfoot.... if real ....IS a Primate".

The question being debated isn't "Does Bigfoot exist?"....but, rather..."IF IT DOES EXIST, what else could it possibly be, other than a Primate?"


And all you skeptics can come-up with, are "Mudwumples" and a 'long-lost offshoot of the Bear Family'.

There AIn't nO evIDENce........as you have just admitted, of a line of Bears evolving gradually into Primates....therefore you ARE "making-up a whole line of the evolutionary tree", which has never existed. (Except in the mind of a few "skeptics".)

 

[Drewbot]

There AIn't nO evIDENce........as you have just admitted, of a line of Bears evolving gradually into Primates....therefore you ARE "making-up a whole line of the evolutionary tree", which has never existed. (Except in the mind of a few "skeptics".)

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.

 

[tyr_13]

tyr13 wrote:



You're completely lost, tyr..........I'm happy to say!

My original statement on the BFF, which I recently re-posted here, (and this whole debate is centered around) was this:




The question being debated isn't "Does Bigfoot exist?"....but, rather..."IF IT DOES EXIST, what else could it possibly be, other than a Primate?"


And all you skeptics can come-up with, are "Mudwumples" and a 'long-lost offshoot of the Bear Family'.

There AIn't nO evIDENce........as you have just admitted, of a line of Bears evolving gradually into Primates....therefore you ARE "making-up a whole line of the evolutionary tree", which has never existed. (Except in the mind of a few "skeptics".)

You're completely wrong, and you yourself point out the reason why. IF bigfoot existed he could be a bear. Because bigfoot doesn't exist we aren't making up a new branch. Congratulations, you fail logic.

 

[Correa Neto]

Never mind. Some footers usually misquote and distort the arguments they can not beat. Last stand for some, single and only for others.

Guess what we close-minded skeptics actually need is to be spooked by howls, footsteps and eyeshine at night... Because distortions, misquotes, data cherry-picking, shaky evidences and personal attacks always fail.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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

Wow...Thanks. If I learned anything from watching Seinfeld, I should thank everyone and leave right now.

 

[Spektator]

Is the Pope Catholic? Yes.

Does a bear poop in the woods? Yes.

Have we found an definitive proof of bigfoot poop in the woods? No.

Thus, bigfoot is not a bear.

Q.E.D.

Hold on, mate. Are you saying that bigfoot is not a bear, but the spiritual leader of sixty-four million people round the world? That he wears a triple tiara? That he's against birth control? Are you saying that?

'Cos it all makes sense now.....

 

[SweatyYeti]

Great timing, on this article...

Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus ?

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/giganto-plus/


"Taking the stance that Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-Mah, whatever you wish to call the classic Neo-Giants of the Pacific Northwest, do exist...what fossil candidate fits best with the reportedly upright, hairy, 6 feet to 8.5 feet tall forest giants of North America?

Everyone seems to be Gigantopithecus lovers, right? But what of the other major fossil choice, Paranthropus?"



Anyone here want to log-in there, and propose a Bear ancestor for Bigfoot?! Maybe get laughed at a little.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hold on, mate. Are you saying that bigfoot is not a bear, but the spiritual leader of sixty-four million people round the world? That he wears a triple tiara? That he's against birth control? Are you saying that?

'Cos it all makes sense now.....

I hope I can post links now, so check this out pic:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_03/PopeBenedictR_468x753.jpg

Popes are always old. Why? Because it's well documented that people shrink and lose hair with age. Bigfoot or Pope: You make the call.

Look at the picture I posted. Tell me that outfit is not a subtle way of implying that the pope has a pouch. He's flaunting it in our faces. At the very least the outfit hides the pouch and huge feet.

As for birth control, think about it for just a sec, eh? Another reason it is so hard to find bigfoot beasts is because there are not a lot of them. The whole egg/pouch thing makes reproduction time consuming and unreliable. So, of *course* they wouldn't advocate birth control. That would be the demise of the species.

You know, I hate to drag out a moderately amusing bit like the SNL guys do, but it's been educational. Life is difficult when you're skeptic what with all the requirements of proof and falsification. It's much easier to throw out crazy ideas...and a lot more entertaining. Talk about fighting an uphill battle. Easy and fun are had to beat.

 

[tyr_13]

Great timing, on this article...

Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus ?

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/giganto-plus/


"Taking the stance that Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-Mah, whatever you wish to call the classic Neo-Giants of the Pacific Northwest, do exist...what fossil candidate fits best with the reportedly upright, hairy, 6 feet to 8.5 feet tall forest giants of North America?

Everyone seems to be Gigantopithecus lovers, right? But what of the other major fossil choice, Paranthropus?"



Anyone here want to log-in there, and propose a Bear ancestor for Bigfoot?! Maybe get laughed at a little.

I'd rather sit here outside the monkey cage and laugh at them. You linked to a crypto website and expect us to take it seriously? Get it published in Nature and we'll talk. That skirts none of the problems we were just talking about.

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

I'd rather sit here outside the monkey cage and laugh at them. You linked to a crypto website and expect us to take it seriously? Get it published in Nature and we'll talk. That skirts none of the problems we were just talking about.

What's so pathetic about 99% of these people is that they're so pathetic.

The Jonestown bus obviously missed a few passengers.

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr13 wrote:

That skirts none of the problems we were just talking about.

What problem?? I'm laughing at your babbling posts, tyr, and RayG's proposal, which nobody on this forum can support with anything of substance.

The best anyone here can do is play 'make-believe' with it.

Good Ol' RayG has even left the building...
(As he did he was muttering something about "Where's the proof...got a body?" A great back-up for an empty argument! )

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Drew asked you an objective question and didn't use a qualifier such as "in your opinion."

I answered a question of yours with an answer containing "I don't think so."

I - don't - think - so.

How is my answer to an objective question of yours a non-answer and an evasion as you say but an answer of yours to an objective question with "in my opinion" and "I consider" is just fine?

Please explain this if you can.

 

[tyr_13]

tyr13 wrote:



What problem?? I'm laughing at your babbling posts, tyr, and RayG's proposal, which nobody on this forum can support with anything of substance.

The best anyone here can do is play 'make-believe' with it.

Good Ol' RayG has even left the building...
(As he did he was muttering something about "Where's the proof...got a body?" A great back-up for an empty argument! )

Now you're just repeating yourself and ignoring what we have been saying (spoon feeding you actually). If you're going to ignore what we are saying, we should probably return the favor in that vein...

Bigfeet are definitely Catholic. Another reason they are so good at hiding is so that no one sees them when they molest little boys. Also, they weave miters out of their own hair. We know this because we never find any of their hair.

 

[kitakaze]

tyr13 wrote:



What problem?? I'm laughing at your babbling posts, tyr, and RayG's proposal, which nobody on this forum can support with anything of substance.

The best anyone here can do is play 'make-believe' with it.

Good Ol' RayG has even left the building...
(As he did he was muttering something about "Where's the proof...got a body?" A great back-up for an empty argument! )

Once again, I don't think Bigfoot are bears. Bigfoot as traditionally described by Bigfoot enthusiasts best fits with a primate. Primates have five toes. What's up with all the four-toed prints in the southern U.S.? This is evidence is being used by proponents to support Bigfoot's existence. What's up with that? Is Bigfoot something unlike anything we've seen?

 

[kitakaze]

Anyone here want to log-in there, and propose a Bear ancestor for Bigfoot?! Maybe get laughed at a little.

Cryptomundo censors the posts of people who point out the flaws of their arguments and stories. This is a well supported, proven fact. We have a thread on the subject. That site is Loren Coleman's vehicle for self-promotion and plugging his books. In his books he writes about Bigfoots with varying numbers of toes. Primates have five. What's up with that?

 

[kitakaze]

What problem?? I'm laughing at your babbling posts, tyr, and RayG's proposal, which nobody on this forum can support with anything of substance.

Keep laughing. Once again, Sweaty's original question:

"What other possible family of animals could leave human-looking footprints with 5 toes, in your opinion, other than Primates?"

RayG rightly answered bears. Here again is Saskeptic's support of Ray's answer at the BFF:

Oh for the love of Pete . . .

First, "Primates" is not a family, it's an order.


Ray posted some photos of human looking feet - five toes and no claw marks. Every one of these could easily be construed as a "sasquatch" print by the uninitiated. I assume that all the prints in the photos he posted were made by bears, order Carnivora. Even the most ardent bigfoot believers must admit that many alleged "sasquatch" prints were actually made by bears. Now if there is no such thing as sasquatch, but much of the evidence for its existence is actually the misidentified sign of bears, then the "real sasquatch" is actually not a primate, but rather representative of several species of bears, order Carnivora.

Clear enough for you? There are real, live, known, and abundant creatures in North America that leave human-looking footprints behind in the size range attributed to sasquatch, and these creatures are not Primates.


My point was that, while most people on the BFF think sasquatch is just another species that has not been described by modern science, there are perhaps an equal number of people out there who believe in a sasquatch that is altogether different. They may view it as spirit being, extraterrestrial in origin - whatever. If these people are correct, then I would say that sasquatch - no matter how apelike it might appear to us apes - should not be classified in the order Primates.


It's perfectly reasonable to work from the assumption that, if a real animal, sasquatch is a primate. But that is not the ONLY possibility.

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 to try and score points on skeptics. It is very petty and clearly demonstrates the weakness of his arguments.

 

[captain koolaid]

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.

Joyce's "sighting"?

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

No problem. I seen one. I tell you it was ten stories high if it was a foot. Had my ass in the grass for decades and I KNOW wildfire, buddy. The beast had the head of a bear, enormous feets and the body of an upright ape. It roared like a jet engine, eyes glowed red, demolished the forest of a small hill. It was a ManBearApe, and it spoke... it repeated the word "Beeeeaaaannnnnssss" as it lumbered toward me. I barely escaped with my life.

Anecdotes = "evidence".

 

[kitakaze]

Joyce's "sighting"?

That's the one. Bigfoot hanging out in Valatie circa 1983. That is what Sweaty puts forward as quality evidence. But Sweaty doesn't want to talk about that now. He wants to talk about bears. He doesn't want to stay on topic and be forced to admit that Joyce is not reliable evidence. He wants to pretend everyone here is stupid and stick his fingers in his ears when he sees such reminders as this one by Drew:

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.

Sweaty sees more potential for point scoring down the bears venue. As long as he can pursue this he will.