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

[Coveredinbeeees]

It's more correct to say that Bigfoot's existence is unlikely or improbable, than it is to say it's definitely not a real animal...because, as the author of the blog said himself, Bigfoot can't be proven not to exist. If it can't be proven, then it can't be known.

So, even with the alternate meaning, it's still not right to "conclude" (make a judgement) that Bigfoot definitely does not exist anywhere in the world, without having proof of such a thing.

Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot?

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

Further, the author of the article you are referring to did not state that he had reached the conclusion that mande barung does not exist. He said, and you quoted,

While I think the current scientific analysis strongly favors the conclusion that the mande barung is a mythical creature and not an existing species, my mind can be changed by new evidence.

Also, he was referring to mande barung, not bigfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Correa Neto & RayG: Factually supported, informed, educated opinions.

Ha....Ha....Ha..........

That statement brings me back to those good old days on the BFF....I remember it like it was just yesterday....a really bad dream, with RayG in it......


I had made a statement, that Bigfoot....IF it does exist...is definitely a Primate.....and Ray jumped into the discussion, and objected to that statement of mine, saying that we don't know, for a fact, that Bigfoot (if it is a real animal) is a Primate....it could actually be some other type of animal, altogether. (Perhaps a mutant Deer? )

Now this was Ray's opinion, which you claim, kitty, is "Factually supported, informed, and educated".


After thinking about it for a few seconds, I asked Ray what other type, or family group, of animal Bigfoot might be, if not a Primate.

He responded, in several different ways, without ever coughing up ONE other potential candidate..despite the "fact" that his opinions are "well-educated" ones.
I asked him a total of about 6 or 7 times, and each time he replied with a non-answer ("I already answered you, but you didn't like the answer", "I don't have to answer, because, technically speaking, I didn't make a "claim"...etc.)


So...let's give Well-Informed Ray another chance.....

What other family group could Bigfoot belong to, if not a Primate??

If the subject of the Patterson Film is a real, wild animal....what other type of animal could it possibly be, if not a Primate?? An offshoot of the Otter family?


The truth of the matter is, simply, that the most common, and typical descriptions of Bigfoot by alleged eyewitnesses fits exactly the description of a human-like Primate....in every way.

Ray's opinion on this point is as UNINFORMED, and foolish as it could possibly be. He can't even understand the MOST BASIC aspect of Bigfoot....let alone anything else about the evidence, above and beyond that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Coveredinbeeeeeees wrote:

Further, the author of the article you are referring to did not state that he had reached the conclusion that mande barung does not exist. He said, and you quoted,

Originally Posted by Steven Novella
While I think the current scientific analysis strongly favors the conclusion that the mande barung is a mythical creature and not an existing species, my mind can be changed by new evidence.

O.k....he's 'off the hook'.....he did state it as a probability ("Strongly favors"), and not as a definite.

The 2nd meaning of the word "conclusion", and his appropriate wording, does the trick, so to speak.

Thanks for the enlightening post, Covered!

 

[tyr_13]

Bear. Now answer our questions.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Bear. Now answer our questions.

Soooo.....let me see....according to you, tyr....IF Bigfoot is a real, live animal....it's a Bear.

But the problem is, if actual Bigfoot sightings are actually just mis-identified Bears....that would mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist. It's only a product of hoaxes and misidentifications of Bears.

We have a paradox...


So.....if what you say is true.....would Bigfoot exist, or wouldn't it???

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

 

[tyr_13]

Nooooooo... IF bigfoot existed it could be a bear. There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You still haven't answered my questions, Sweaty. What's wrong? Are you afraid?

The 3rd one is a tall order so let's just go with the first two for now as they don't require heavy answers:

1)

Originally Posted by kitakaze

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

No, you didn't. I've demonstrated your opinion is pretty worthless when it comes to Bigfoot evidence. Keep running.

Do you have an actual question, regarding this, kitty?

2)
Originally Posted by kitakaze
That's an interesting point you raise about the worth of opinions and whose are better. I wonder, would it be fair to say that an informed opinion is better and worth more than an uninformed or poorly informed opinion?
I think it may well indeed be fair to say that.

Continuing what I was saying in my post, last night, about the value of opinions....

Absolutely...an informed opinion is worth more than an uninformed opinion. But we can't tell that an opinion is "well-informed" unless the person who is stating their opinion in a post, demonstrates that his opinion is an informed one.

That's why I've said before, that an opinion, presented by itself, is worth the basic value of 2-cents.

For example...if, after I first made my comparison image of Bob and Patty, I announced in the thread (I started for it), that Bob's arm is shorter than Patty's arm, proportionally speaking... without posting the image, which demonstrates what I'm saying, then my opinion would be of no real value to other people on the board, even though it was, in fact, based on information (an 'informed opinion').

Now, people are free to disagree with me, when I say that Bob's arm is shorter than Patty's...but that's only a matter of the accuracy of the information (the comparison), not whether or not there is information.


Even in the case of 'experts' and 'professionals'....their opinions need to be supported somewhere, in a publication, or in their posts...with something of substance...in order for their opinions to carry any real weight.

I don't think we're at a loss of you demonstrating a poorly informed opinion. Is it fair to say that, Sweaty?

I'll admit that I have made some mistakes in my posts. I'm not perfect.
You're free to point them out, kitty....as I've pointed-out some of your mistakes.

See, what I showed is that when it comes to reliable evidence of Bigfoot people like RayG and Correa Neto's opinions are supported by something of excellent substance. Namely, factual information.

Yup....you sure did, kitty.
Now why don't you showed us all 'zactly how Ray's opinion on the 'other possible family-groups that Bigfoot may belong to' is "Supported by something of EXCELLENT substance".

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr13 wrote:

There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a new statement for my siggy line!!

 

[I Am He]

I wonder why Sweaty isn't on stage?? He's one of the best tap dancers that I've ever seen.


I Am He

 

[kitakaze]

Do you have an actual question, regarding this, kitty?

OMG! Bigfoot hump a goat : milk a cat!

When I put up my number one on the list I thought to myself, "I wonder if Sweaty would be oily enough to try and weasel a 'Where's the question mark?'?" and then "Nooo. Sweaty can hammertime but he wouldn't do something that lame."

I, sir, stand in awe of the depths you'll sink in your evasion games.

Here you go -

Why did you say this?:

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

Now onto the rest.

 

[kitakaze]

Hey, kitty.....how did you like that comparison of Patty and Stiffy?!

The word "nonplus" comes to mind. The gifs you posted were tiny but I could see a superficial resemblace between Patty's leg and Dfoot's.

Meanwhile Patty McLumpy still has an unrealistic leg with a thigh that does what no muscle should do and softball lumpies here and there.

This is still not a PGF thread and the PGF is still not reliable evidence of Bigfoot. Could be a man, could be a Bigfoot. Given the circumstances, it's far more likely to be a man. If you want to talk PGF, take it to the right thread.

 

[kitakaze]

Ray's opinion on this point is as UNINFORMED, and foolish as it could possibly be. He can't even understand the MOST BASIC aspect of Bigfoot....let alone anything else about the evidence, above and beyond that.

RayG sometime ago telling you that we don't know for a fact that Bigfoot is a primate bothers me not. We have Bigfoot footprints with less or more than five toes that haven't been proven to be hoaxes so there you go.

RayG consistently strives to stick to the facts regarding Bigfoot. We can see this when he spoke with Dr. Poirier regarding the purported yeren hairs that could have been a bear, person, yeren, etc to discern the truth of the matter. RayG is an excellent person to talk to if you want to know about quality evidence for Bigfoot. Absolutely.

You are not. Not at all. Talking to you about Bigfoot evidence is a phenomenally bad idea. It's in range with talking with Creekfreak, Bullet Maker, and such. You consistently get your purse handed to you because you can't be bothered to properly check the facts about what you're claiming. You give us a link in response to a request for reliable evidence and tell us it's hair sample DNA evidence when by simply reading what you linked we see no reference to DNA testing. What's the matter with this guy? Doesn't he read his own links before he makes his claims? This type of thing happens often with you, Sweaty. I would like to learn about Bigfoot evidence. Who do I go to, RayG or the guy who believes in Martian civilization, E.T. visitation, and global Bigfoot and doesn't read his own links?

 

[kitakaze]

Coveredinbeeeeeees wrote:



O.k....he's 'off the hook'.....he did state it as a probability ("Strongly favors"), and not as a definite.

The 2nd meaning of the word "conclusion", and his appropriate wording, does the trick, so to speak.

Thanks for the enlightening post, Covered!

He's off the hook? Notice how SweatyYeti just can't seem to straightforwardly say "I was mistaken and misinterpretted what the author was saying."

 

[kitakaze]

Absolutely...an informed opinion is worth more than an uninformed opinion.

Thank you for finally answering #2 on my list of three. Two more and I can cut and paste my response to your five questions. Millimeter by millimeter we're making progress. You still have nowhere near properly demonstrated that Patty's arm is longer than Heironimus' and to the extent that without a mechanical device he can be reliably ruled out as the suit wearer. You are free to go back to that thread and keep trying if your not busy enough to go back to getting powned in two threads again.

Correa and RayG's opinions on Bigfoot evidence are consistently well informed and factually supported thus being of far greater value than yours.

I'll admit that I have made some mistakes in my posts. I'm not perfect.
You're free to point them out, kitty....as I've pointed-out some of your mistakes.

Unlike you, I make a point of immediately acknowledging my mistakes and being grateful to the person who allowed me to refine my knowledge. I do not incessantly evade and backflip about when people point out my errors.

I also make a point of striving for the facts and exposing false claims when it comes to Bigfoot evidence unlike you. Thus, like RayG and Correa, my opinions regarding Bigfoot are of much higher value than yours. It has been demonstrated.

 

[GT/CS]

Never mind

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I wonder why Sweaty isn't on stage?? He's one of the best tap dancers that I've ever seen.


I Am He

I was wondering the same thing myself

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

RayG's opinions on Bigfoot evidence are consistently well-informed and factually supported thus being of far greater value than yours.

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?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I, sir, stand in awe of the depths you'll sink in your evasion games.

And I was, and still am, in awe of the stupidity of Ray's suggestion...that Bigfoot may NOT be a Primate.


And I stand in awe of the utter stupidity of this statement....

There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear.

That statement is laughable....to say the least. I'll be having some fun with that one!


But wait.....there's more!........I also stand in awe of the fact that no-one has been able to answer this ridiculously easy question...

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

Skeptics are the ones who will truly evade, and outright REFUSE to answer questions.
Ray did exactly that, when we had that exchange on the BFF, years ago.
To this day, he has evaded providing...in support of his suggestion...just ONE example of another family group that Bigfoot might actually, and reason-ably, be.



I noticed that you failed to quote this statement, from my post, kitty...

The truth of the matter is, simply, that the most common, and typical descriptions of Bigfoot by alleged eyewitnesses fits exactly the description of a human-like Primate....in every way.

The reason why I included that phrase (in bold) in my statement, is because I knew you would use a non-typical example of a Bigfoot description/evidence, in trying to defend Ray's idiotic suggestion.
And you did, sure enough!


So, since you failed to respond to that important condition, kitty.....I'll ask you.....and Well-Informed Ray.....what other type, or group, of animal...besides Primate...fits the common, typical description of Bigfoot??


Years are rolling by, as Ray ducks, dodges and hides from his own suggestion (or, "well-informed opinion", you might say).

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I also make a point of striving for the facts and exposing false claims when it comes to Bigfoot evidence

Good. Then you'll happily join me in seeking an answer from Well-Informed Ray, regarding his "well-Informed" suggestion.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Skeptics are the ones who will truly evade, and outright REFUSE to answer questions.
Ray did exactly that, when we had that exchange on the BFF, years ago.
To this day, he has evaded providing...in support of his suggestion...just ONE example of another family group that Bigfoot might actually, and reason-ably, be.




So, since you failed to respond to that important condition, kitty.....I'll ask you.....and Well-Informed Ray.....what other type, or group, of animal...besides Primate...fits the common, typical description of Bigfoot??

Heres one

Canis Lupus

Based on the "bigfoot' evidence the description of werewolf ( lycanthro) fits just as good

it walks upright, great strength etc

it cant be found because it changes back to human and works at Wal mart during the week.

The yells- it has a cold or asthma

would also explain the close to human DNA and hair

So, show me how BF "cant' be a werewolf based on what we "know" ( which is nothing)