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

[RayG]

Maybe bigfoot is just a mudwumple* in disguise.
.
RayG
.
* mudwumple = an undiscovered, unclassified, legendary creature that supposedly looks a lot like a very large alligator/crocodile, but with very long legs (so much so that they can run bipedally at very high speed for short distances), oddly shaped feet, and they are reportedly much bigger, smarter, stronger and faster than a regular alligator or crocodile. Mudwumples are mentioned in many Native legends which tell tales of them carrying off young children, killing and eating them. No bones, or bodyparts of the mudwumple have ever been found, but mudwumple supporters point to a film taken by an intrepid explorer 40 years ago as evidence of the creature. Though much controversy exists today over this unique film, no one has ever proven it to be real or hoaxed. Tracks and other mudwumple evidence have been hoaxed, and some people have even dressed up as mudwumples to try to scare people. Many books have been written about mudwumples, and a few scientists think the evidence is compelling enough to warrant further investigation. Many mudwumple organizations have sprung up across North America, but there is sometimes much disagreement between them. One well known organization, calling itself "The scientific research organization exploring the mudwumple mystery", conducts mudwumple expeditions to raise money for further mudwumple research.

 

[kitakaze]

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....




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

Deflection. Answer the question.

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...

I'll happily provide you with an answer along with a response to your other five questions just as soon as you stop the blatant evasion.

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'm quite confident that there is not a single person other than yourself currently participating in this thread who isn't thinking something along the lines of "Wow. Does Sweaty actually believe anyone is dumb enough not to see through his gob-smackingly obvious evasion?"

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

Yeah, hey, wow... That's kinda funny, you know, seeing how YOU QUOTED MY POST BUT FAILED TO ANSWER THE RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE QUESTION IN IT. You might consider moving to Brooklyn to be with some other dodgers.

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!

Many Bigfoot enthusiasts believe that going on footprint evidence that it is typical for Bigfoots in areas outside the PNW such as Florida to have four toes. How many digits does a primate typically have? That said, I certainly agree that the description traditionally given us by Bigfooters fits with that of a primate. There are many exceptions, Dog Man/Beast of Brae Road being one.

Check around 2:00 on this video for a demonstration of multiple four-toed prints:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3e2v6ebv7Y&feature=related

And more from some Bigfoot researchers:

"There appeared to be something different about each track," Kessler said. "I don't know what it is, maybe the climate or terrain, but we seem to have a lot more four-toed Bigfoot in the South. The five-toed ones are usually up in the Pacific Northwest.

"And the Honey Island Swamp Monster (in southeast Louisiana) has three toes," Kessler said.

http://farshores.org/bfoot18.htm

Old school Bigfoot four toes::

Bigfoot sightings in North America began in the early 1800s apparently, though newspapers of that
time often printed hoax stories, so one cannot be sure. The first of many bigfoot sightings began
with an 1811 account near Jasper, Alberta, Canada by a fur trader by the name of David
Thompson. He claimed to have found four-toed, strange footprints in fresh snow.

http://ourbigfoot.com/bigfoot_sightings.html

Three-toed vs five-toed prints BFF thread:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8327

You can go ahead and be complete hypocrite and discount them solely on the number of toes.

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

Hi. Hey there. How ya doin'? Yeah, Ray's not here right now so please leave a message and maybe he'll get back to you.

You, on the other hand, are here and doing a wonderful Hammer Time.

ETA: Oh look, there's Ray. Hi, Ray.

 

[kitakaze]

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

No, I think I'll stick to making Darth Evader dance like a monkey for now.

Two facts:

1) Kitakaze's opinions regarding quality Bigfoot evidence are far more valuable than SweatyYeti's.

2) SweatyYeti clearly, blatantly, and without doubt evades skeptics.

This thread is the proof.

Can't touch this.

 

[RayG]

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

Well, bag one, classify it, and I'll get the word 'STUPID' tattooed on my forehead. Fair enough?

..I'll ask you.....and Well-Informed Ray.....what other type, or group, of animal...besides Primate...fits the common, typical description of Bigfoot??

Ah, I see you've Riverdanced into a different question altogether. One that differs greatly from what you originally asked me over at the BFF...

You know, this one:

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

Apparently you decided to ignore the numerous examples of human-looking, 5 toed, non-primate bear tracks I provided.

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

Remember this Sweaty? No? I'm not surprised.

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?

Got a specific link to that quote you attribute to me? I know I've said this:

-- "It's not a great stretch to speculate that IF bigfoot exists, it's most likely a primate."

-- "Saying they're primates if they exist is the easy part. Proving they actually exist is not so easy."

-- "I've never argued that squatch is NOT a primate, only that there are no experts when it comes to bigfoot..."

-- "I've already admitted that, if it exists it's most likely a primate, and I've pointed that out -- on more than one occasion. Can I say with absolute authority that bigfoot is a primate? No. Produce one, classify it, and I'll eat as much crow as you'd like."

In addition to the crow, I'll get the tattoo. What more could you ask for?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Ah, I see you've Riverdanced into a different question altogether. One that differs greatly from what you originally asked me over at the BFF...

You know, this one:

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

Remember this Sweaty? No? I'm not surprised.

Sweaty moving the goal posts? Shock!

Allow me, Ray, to repost Saskeptic's support of your answer about bears regarding Sweaty's question before he weaseled with the goalposts:

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

 

[captain koolaid]

Maybe bigfoot is just a mudwumple* in disguise.
.
RayG
.
* mudwumple = an undiscovered, unclassified, legendary creature that supposedly looks a lot like a very large alligator/crocodile, but with very long legs (so much so that they can run bipedally at very high speed for short distances), oddly shaped feet, and they are reportedly much bigger, smarter, stronger and faster than a regular alligator or crocodile. Mudwumples are mentioned in many Native legends which tell tales of them carrying off young children, killing and eating them. No bones, or bodyparts of the mudwumple have ever been found, but mudwumple supporters point to a film taken by an intrepid explorer 40 years ago as evidence of the creature. Though much controversy exists today over this unique film, no one has ever proven it to be real or hoaxed. Tracks and other mudwumple evidence have been hoaxed, and some people have even dressed up as mudwumples to try to scare people. Many books have been written about mudwumples, and a few scientists think the evidence is compelling enough to warrant further investigation. Many mudwumple organizations have sprung up across North America, but there is sometimes much disagreement between them. One well known organization, calling itself "The scientific research organization exploring the mudwumple mystery", conducts mudwumple expeditions to raise money for further mudwumple research.

But the bones of such a creature have been found. The beast as described, exists in the fossil record, at least. It might be possible that such a legend originated in the discovery, by natives, of a well preserved articulated fossil. The large Rauisuchians and Poposuchians fit the bill. As does the smaller Protosuchia. In any event, the "Mudwumple" has a definite edge over "Bigfoot"- It did exist, in a form, in North America. Unlike Biggus Stinkus.

 

[kitakaze]

SweatyYeti thinks Bigfoot is global. Apparently four-toed Bigfoots are typical in Malaysia.

Loren Coleman says so:

These need to be compared to past Malaysian footprints of unknown hairy hominoids, too, of course.

For over thirty years, large four-toed prints have been found there.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-vs-rhino-tracks/

 

[Correa Neto]

Sweaty, I see you evaded the main issue I exposed before to back my position regarding PGF not being reliable evidence. Here it is again:

First of all the film's original has no known, traceable chain of custody. The original material is not availble for examination. No matter how much one talks about second or first generation copies being examined - the original uncut material has never been propperly examined. This is the first -and major- blow. Even if Patty were much more realistic than what it actually is, this would be a major issue.

This could be minored if the data showed repeatbility - if other films of a similar creature, at least with the same quality (and better provenance as well) existed. Since it does not...

The fact that the uncut original has never been made public is a big source of stinky fishy smell. And its not bigfoot smell - its the smell of hoaxery. If its not a hoax, there's no reson to keep it hidden.

Can you provide some links to those older films, Correa?

I'd like to make-up some animated-gifs, comparing the apparent muscle movements of Patty and "Shaggy".

Oh, of course, I already posted links, several times at the defunct PGF thread. Feel free to use the search function whenever you have the time to do so. You might as well want to check AMM's links. Note that for this comparisson, there's no actual need to check only ape suits. BTW, you are aware that not all vintage gorilla costumes are shaggy (most actually are not), are you?

But remember to make the comparisson propperly - looking for sequences with similar film grain, for example.

Oh, make sure also to move the discussion to a propper PGF thread.

In addition to the 'problems' showing up more clearly....the alleged apparent muscle movement in those shaggy suits should ALSO be showing up more clearly.....right?? Well, let's see it!

Guess what? I just found a problem (yep, one more) within an argument of yours... As always, you (don't be sad, many a footer do the same error) are not taking in to account PGF's grainess, lack of definition, blur, etc. which makes it a heaven for pareidolia. Just cause you see it, it doesn't mean its there...

What about this? Open a new thread where we can compare Patty with other costumes! We can move all this Patty costume-related discussions to there.

This thread is related to reliable evidence, something which PGF is not (see the top of this post).

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??

Sweaty, I'll show again another flaw in a reasoning of yours. Lets assume bigfeet are real for this one. Ever heard about evolutionary convergence?
A beast that fits the typical description of a saber-toothed cat must be a feline, right?
A beast that fits the typical description of a hippo must be an artiodactyl, right?
A beast that fits the typical description of a camel must be an ungulate, right?
A beast that fits the typical description of a fish must be a fish, right?
A beast that fits the typical description of a lizzard must be a lacertidae, right?
A knuckle-walking beast must be a primate, right?

Nope. The answer to all the above is no.

Even if Patty were a real creature, without a specimen, without DNA, you can not be sure its a primate. Evolutionary convergence avoids you to be sure. Footage such as PGF and eyewitness reports are not good enough to back such claim - even if bigfeet were real - you need something much better. Just cause you see it, it doesn't mean its what you think it is. Just cause you see it, it doesn't mean its real.

Now, before attacking another poster and fumbling again, what about improving your own critical thinking skills? Well, you can always continue to "think outside of the box" and go study this other cryptid...
"Chupacabra-Literally, goat sucker. This strange creature has been killing animals in Puerto Rico"

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.

would also explain the close to human DNA and hair

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's explanation of Werewolves:

Werewolves, also known as lycanthropes, are mythological or folkloric humans with the ability to shapeshift into wolves or wolf-like creatures...



Becoming a werewolf......


Various methods for becoming a werewolf have been reported, one of the simplest being the removal of clothing and putting on a belt made of wolfskin, probably as a substitute for the assumption of an entire animal skin (which also is frequently described).
In other cases, the body is rubbed with a magic salve.

That's an interesting theory, Longtabber......but I was asking about a real animal group, as an alternative to Primates.


Longtabber wrote:

So, show me how Bigfoot "cant" be a werewolf based on what we "know" ...

Show me a "person" who thinks "Bigfoot" could possibly be a "Werewolf"....and I'll show "you" a complete "idiot"....""


Show me "someone" who thinks the "subject" of the "Patterson Film" could possibly be a "Werewolf"....and I'll show "you" a total "idiot"..."".

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Even if Patty were a real creature, without a specimen, without DNA, you can not be sure its a primate.

Actually, I can be completely sure that Bigfoot, if it exists, is a Primate.

The fact that nobody here, or on the BFF, has ever been able to suggest even ONE other potential (real) candidate group tells me.....in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS....that there is NO other potential group out there that Bigfoot could possibly be, besides a Primate.

The best you guys can come up with is the "Werewolf" family?!

If you, Ray, and the rest of the gang prefer to live in make-believe land......go right ahead......I don't care.

I only wish I had more time to put into this discussion.....it has so much potential for more 'classic non-sense' lines, courtesy of Randi's "critical thinkers"!

Like this beauty...from tyr13...

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

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Oh, of course, I already posted links, several times at the defunct PGF thread. Feel free to use the search function whenever you have the time to do so

Sorry, I don't have time to go find, and then search through all those old movie video links.

It's o.k. if you don't want to support your statements, Correa.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's explanation of Werewolves:




That's an interesting theory, Longtabber......but I was asking about a real animal group, as an alternative to Primates.


Longtabber wrote:



Show me a "person" who thinks "Bigfoot" could possibly be a "Werewolf"....and I'll show "you" a complete "idiot"....""


Show me "someone" who thinks the "subject" of the "Patterson Film" could possibly be a "Werewolf"....and I'll show "you" a total "idiot"..."".

you really dont want to get in a discussion with me about showing someone to be a "complete idiot"

who has "proven" a werewolf to not exist? so if its not "proven" to "not" exist then its as legitimate as Patty and as such the evidence conclusively "proves" ( because it cannot be disproven) that Patty can be a werewolf.

I like the way you think. Its entertaining

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

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

No.

Thanks, kitty....your answer shows your dishonesty.


Quoting you, again....

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

 

[SweatyYeti]

WoooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is just TOO GOOD to be true!!!


A fresh "classic nonsense" line, courtesy of Longtabber......

Who has "proven" a werewolf to not exist?

so if its not "proven" to "not" exist then its as legitimate as Patty and as such the evidence conclusively "proves" ( because it cannot be disproven) that Patty can be a werewolf.

And I had just written this, a little while ago...

I only wish I had more time to put into this discussion.....it has so much potential for more 'classic non-sense' lines, courtesy of Randi's "critical thinkers"!

Well, that'll do for now! 'Tis a nice day outside......

 

[RayG]

Show me a "person" who thinks "Bigfoot" could possibly be a "Werewolf"....and I'll show "you" a complete "idiot"....""


Show me "someone" who thinks the "subject" of the "Patterson Film" could possibly be a "Werewolf"....and I'll show "you" a total "idiot"..."".

C'mon Sweaty, bring in a real squatch and I'll add 'IDIOT' to my stupid tattoo, right in the middle of my forehead.

RayG

 

[tyr_13]

Actually, I can be completely sure that Bigfoot, if it exists, is a Primate.

Are we supposed to care what you are 'sure' of? Bring the evidence man! Oh wait, I can't possibly want someone who can't answer a question straight to back up their claims.

The fact that nobody here, or on the BFF, has ever been able to suggest even ONE other potential (real) candidate group tells me.....in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS....that there is NO other potential group out there that Bigfoot could possibly be, besides a Primate.

Bear, sloth, non-existent, costumicus, cat, etc. Without reliable evidence of something existing, you can't claim (and be correct) to have reliable evidence of what family it belongs to (although primate isn't a family).

The best you guys can come up with is the "Werewolf" family?!

The best we came up with is, 'non-existent'. You like to repeat things that sound silly to you, but to the rest of us are just as reasonable as bigfoot being around in the first place. It's always great to see what the crazies think is crazy.

If you, Ray, and the rest of the gang prefer to live in make-believe land......go right ahead......I don't care.

I only wish I had more time to put into this discussion.....it has so much potential for more 'classic non-sense' lines, courtesy of Randi's "critical thinkers"!

Like this beauty...from tyr13...

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

Thanks for the quote. It is still true. The fact that you find it funny is evidence of your poor reasoning skills. You need proof of something to support claims about it. Duh.

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr13 wrote:

You need proof of something to support claims about it.

As I said, in my original statement on the BFF:

TWO SIMPLE FACTS:
1)You agree that Chilcutt is an expert with regards to primate fingerprints, and footprints.
2) Bigfoot.... if real....IS a primate.

That was the statement that RayG objected to.

Ray stated that we cannot be CERTAIN that Bigfoot, if it really does exist, is a Primate.


Now...in response to your statement above, tyr....proof of Bigfoot's existence is not needed, in order to support the claim I made in my original statement, quoted above.

To demonstrate what I mean...here are 3 simple questions...for any skeptic to answer...

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

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

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

 

[tube]

Since Chilcutt put "dermals" on an elk cast, I guess that makes Cervus canadensis a primate too...

 

[tyr_13]

Since Chilcutt put "dermals" on an elk cast, I guess that makes Cervus canadensis a primate too...

Exactly. Finding primate ridges on a hoax print proves nothing about bigfoot or if it could be a primate. Sure, IF bigfoot existed it COULD BE a primate. It could also be a stranded alien, or a bear. There is no evidence about this.

All talk about the PG film doesn't matter on this point. The suit looks like a primate, but that doesn't make it a primate.

So to your questions. Maybe, maybe, and maybe. Depends on who the suit fits.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks, kitty....your answer shows your dishonesty.

My answer shows no dishonesty on my part. Here's why:

Of course you left out the "for now." Of course you leave out the part that specifies that I'm first interested in putting an end to your evasion before I join you in any queries.

You have the answer to the question that you said Ray was evading for years. You had it years ago. The answer is bears. Again, your question before you moved the goalposts:

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

Bears.

Hammer Time continues. Sweaty, I want to thank you for providing an perfect example in this thread of you epic evasion tactics. The thread started from the OP talking about your evasion and you have once again delivered artless dodging.

This thread shows your dishonesty quit clearly. You said you don't evade but the thread clearly shows you do.

I await your partial quoting of this post.