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

[kitakaze]

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.

Sweaty, Correa has provided what you asked for on multiple occassions in the 411 PGF. People like you who ask for something, get it, and come back 2 months later and ask again contribute to why that thing is so huge.

Again you show that fact-checking is irksome for you. No one should provide you with anything when you won't even answer simple requests.

 

[kitakaze]

Here we are at page #5, going on 4 pages of Sweaty evading countless calls to explain this statement of his:

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

Again, Sweaty, why'd you say that?

 

[kitakaze]

(snip)...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?

Sweaty is attempting deflection to evade dealing with the subject of the thread. Those three questions represent a topic appropriate for another thread, one that I'm sure Sweaty would himself gladly start to get away from the powning he's receiving in this thread. I would happily answer those simple questions but I and any other skeptic familiar with Sweaty would naturally be expected to first ask, "Why should I answer any request for reply from you, Sweaty, when you evade similar requests from others?"

 

[RayG]

That was the statement that RayG objected to.

RayG objects even more to your twisted logic, which goes something like this:

1. God is love
2. Love is blind
3. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God

But hey, logic has never been your strong point so one shouldn't be surprised.

What is the probability that you'll bring in a bigfoot so I can get working on those tattoos?

C'mon Sweaty...



RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Correa Neto wrote:



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".

Above is a fine example of how Sweaty's evasion and deflection works. This thread is about reliable evidence vs proof regarding Bigfoot and Sweaty's confusion of them. Sweaty put the PGF forward which was explained to be neither reliable evidence or proof.

When Correa rightly pointed out that the PGF can not be reliable evidence even if only by the virtue that the original film is not available for examination Sweaty ignored the point. Correa pointed it out again in the post above where Sweaty partially quotes Correa leaving out the reminder of that critical flaw. Instead Sweaty focuses solely on the Bigfoot/primate diversion yet instead of dealing with Correa's arguments on the subject in the post he partially quotes him he instead focuses only on the statements of people who are not Correa Neto. Why not deal with what Correa is saying? Are you afraid, Sweaty? Can't bear to let anyone see the cracks in your arguments? This is how Sweaty operates. This is when we see that scoring points on evil skeptics is Sweaty's game and honest discussion is not in the cards. He apparently thinks we don't notice.

 

[Correa Neto]

No evasion, no obfuscation. Just show your cards, if you have any.

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

OK, go ahead, I call your bluff. Prove it, no empty words. Show us how you can be completely sure that bigfeet if they exist, are primates without a specimen or DNA. Show us how you can discount the possibility that these animals are a product of evolutionary convergence. Faith and belief do not count.

If you can be sure –with the available data- that bigfeet is a primate, than I can be sure –with this very same data- that they are not real. I can, according to your reasoning, be completely sure that Patty’s and many alleged bigfoot footprints are related a primate indeed - Homo sapiens.

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.

Vertebrate, five toes, four members, hairs… Convergent evolution…
What about a bipedal marsupial?
What about a genus which evolved, say, from bears?

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

Ever considered the quality of the evidence backing werevolves? It’s the very same stuff used to back bigfeet. They even received their own Monsterquest episode, eh?

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

You mean the fantasy land where one does not have to take in to account different perspectives, different cameras, different focal length and different exposures when comparing images?

Oh, sorry, that’s your fantasy land, also teeming with global bigfeet and Martian civilizations… Would the Earth also happen to be hollow there?

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".

OK, I’ll call your bluff again. Prove him wrong. No empty words.
Prove bigfeet can not be an evolutionary offspring from bears by convergent evolution.

You really should try to improve your critical thinking skills….

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

C’mon, the search function is not so hard to use… Go ahead, open a thread where we can compare Patty with other costumes. Paste-and-cut what I wrote about it at the defunct PGF thread. Would you happen to be afraid of the outcome, Sweaty?

Oh, I almost forgot…

First of all the film's original has no known, traceable chain of custody. The original material is not available for examination. No matter how much one talks about second or first generation copies being examined - the original uncut material has never been properly 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...

It's clear you can't counter this, Sweaty. Just like the other issues we talked about at other threads. Just like the issues I am awaiting to discuss with you regarding comparing Patty with other costumes at the proper thread.

There are no reliable pieces of evidence available to suport the claim "bigfeet are real".

It's clear you can't counter this, Sweaty.

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

C’mon, the search function is not so hard to use… Go ahead, open a thread where we can compare Patty with other costumes. Paste-and-cut what I wrote about it at the defunct PGF thread. Would you happen to be afraid of the outcome, Sweaty?

Oh, I almost forgot…

First of all the film's original has no known, traceable chain of custody. The original material is not available for examination. No matter how much one talks about second or first generation copies being examined - the original uncut material has never been properly 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...

It's clear you can't counter this, Sweaty. Just like the other issues we talked about at other threads. Just like the issues I am awaiting to discuss with you regarding comparing Patty with other costumes at the proper thread.

There are no reliable pieces of evidence available to suport the claim "bigfeet are real".

It's clear you can't counter this, Sweaty.

And what about my question regarding whose perceptions of the film (real animal x ape suit) are more correct and why? Seems you cant figure out the answers, also...

Out of time?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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.

Vertebrate, five toes, four members, hairs… Convergent evolution…
What about a bipedal marsupial?

Hmmmm.....very interesting suggestion, Correa.

Bigfoot, a creature which is most commonly described as having both ape-like and human-like features....might actually be an offshoot of the kangaroo 'family of critters'.
Just imagine....if they eventually evolve further along, towards a fully-modern human form, we might literally have ourselves a real, live Captain Kangaroo...

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

Hey....now that's got possibilities!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Correa Neto wrote:

First of all the film's original has no known, traceable chain of custody. The original material is not available for examination. No matter how much one talks about second or first generation copies being examined - the original uncut material has never been properly 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...

It's clear you can't counter this, Sweaty

You're right, Correa.......I can't counter the facts surrounding the 'chain of custody' of the original PG Film....whatever those facts truly are.

But I've never been overly concerned about that.
I'm more interested in analysing the subject of the Film, 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.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

But I've never been overly concerned about that.
I'm more interested in analysing the subject of the Film, 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.

You mean like in the past 40 years?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Originally Posted by Correa Neto
There are no reliable pieces of evidence available to suport the claim "bigfeet are real".

It's clear you can't counter this, Sweaty.

That is clearly your opinion, Correa.

Unsupported....your opinion, like eveyone else's unsupported opinion (including mine), is worth anywhere from nothing, to a penny or two.

And what about my question regarding whose perceptions of the film (real animal x ape suit) are more correct and why? Seems you cant figure out the answers, also...

What post number was that in? I looked for it, but couldn't find it.

I think I already responded to that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Kitty....going nuts again.

kitakaze hissed:

Are you afraid, Sweaty? Can't bear to let anyone see the cracks in your arguments? This is how Sweaty operates. This is when we see that scoring points on evil skeptics is Sweaty's game and honest discussion is not in the cards. He apparently thinks we don't notice.

Above is a fine example of how Sweaty's evasion and deflection works.

People like you who ask for something, get it, and come back 2 months later and ask again contribute to why that thing is so huge.

Again you show that fact-checking is irksome for you. No one should provide you with anything when you won't even answer simple requests.

Sweaty is attempting deflection to evade dealing with the subject of the thread.

I would happily answer those simple questions but I would naturally be expected to first ask, "Why should I answer any request for reply from you, Sweaty, when you evade similar requests from others?"

"I wonder if Sweaty would be oily enough to try and weasel a 'Where's the question mark?'?"

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

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

I do not incessantly evade and backflip about when people point out my errors.

Deflection. Answer the 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.

"Wow. Does Sweaty actually believe anyone is dumb enough not to see through his gob-smackingly obvious evasion?"

You might consider moving to Brooklyn to be with some other dodgers.

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

SweatyYeti clearly, blatantly, and without doubt evades skeptics.

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

You said you don't evade but the thread clearly shows you do.

kitty, this post clearly shows that you have a problem.


As for my "evasion" of your question...

Here we are at page #5, going on 4 pages of Sweaty evading countless calls to explain this statement of his:

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

Again, Sweaty, why'd you say that?

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??

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

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

And what about ALL of the many species which would have branched-off of that 'genus' branch, over the last several million years or so???
Where have they all gone to?

For a "Bear" species to exist today, which converged with the Primates, it would have had to branch off from the Bear line many millions of years ago, because of the large degree of differences between the two types.

Consequently, due to the extreme age of that branch, it would be a "thick" branch on the evolutionary tree, and would have had many smaller off-shoots, branching off from it. All of those species (off-shoots) would then have some of these "apelike" features.
So....where are all these Bear/Ape species of animals??? Where is the evidence that anything like that has ever existed???

If there is no evidence for such a creature...there is no reason to think it ever existed.


Again....I ask Well-Informed Ray.....concerning his opinion, his suggestion.....what other family of real animal could Bigfoot reason-ably be, besides a Primate?

Two years...and counting...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

OK, I’ll call your bluff again. Prove him wrong. No empty words.
Prove bigfeet can not be an evolutionary offspring from bears by convergent evolution.

You really should try to improve your critical thinking skills….

Talk about "empty words", Correa.....your basket of fossils of intermediate forms between Bear and Ape, is DEAD EMPTY.


I think the "Critical Thinking" that supposedly thrives on this board, is, in reality, "Thinking in Critical Condition".


Oh look, here's one of those "Critical Thinkers" now...with a bit of Wisdom for us all to ponder...


"...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."

 

[Correa Neto]

Hmmmm.....very interesting suggestion, Correa.

Bigfoot, a creature which is most commonly described as having both ape-like and human-like features....might actually be an offshoot of the kangaroo 'family of critters'.

Dolphins and ichtyosaurs are commonly described as having fish-like features... They might actually be an ofshoot of the shark 'family of critters', right?

Just tell me how, solely based on eyewitness reports and crappy (bigfootery-quality) imagery you could be sure they are not fishes.

You're right, Correa.......I can't counter the facts surrounding the 'chain of custody' of the original PG Film....whatever those facts truly are.

But I've never been overly concerned about that.
I'm more interested in analysing the subject of the Film, 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.

You do realize that issues reated to the chain of custody and the fact that the originals are not available for examinations render it as unreliable evidence, right? But why worry about these problems?

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.

What post number was that in? I looked for it, but couldn't find it.

I think I already responded to that.

You can use the search function to find my unanswered question regarding whose perceptions of the film (real animal x ape suit) are more correct. Its just a couple of pages back if you don't want to use it.

That is clearly your opinion, Correa.

Unsupported....your opinion, like eveyone else's unsupported opinion (including mine), is worth anywhere from nothing, to a penny or two.

And you have not managed to produce anything but empty words to counter it. The absence of reliable evidence to back bigfeet as real animals is a fact supported by evaluation of the quality of the material presented so far -its not "just an opinion". Your attempts to disqualify or minimize it so far were fruitless. Saying "its just an opinion" will not take you from the corner you stuck yourself in to.

If there were reliable evidence, bigfootery would not be 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. Guess whose fault it is?

Talk about "empty words", Correa.....your basket of fossils of intermediate forms between Bear and Ape, is DEAD EMPTY.

Sweaty, you close-minded bearbigfoot skeptic, your hand is dead empty!

You can't, based only on footage and eyewitness reports be sure if bigfeet -assuming they are real- are primates, even if this is were the most likely explanation. Its not reliable. That's one of the resons why there are quality standards when it comes to data reliability. That's why specimens are needed.

Note that I can easily pull out an "incomplete fossil register" line which footers (and creationists) use to "explain" the lack of evidence. Add a handfull of smileys and some words in all caps and what we got?


By the way, please do not forget to open a thread where we can compare Patty with other costumes.

 

[GT/CS]

[Snip].......

Sweaty, you close-minded bearbigfoot skeptic, your hand is dead empty!

[Snip]

Excellent point.

I wonder why 'footers are so close-minded. Every weird thing they see is a bigfoot and only a bigfoot, end of story.

It's a good thing the true skeptics on this site are open-minded enough to accept all possibilities until the evidence points us in a particular direction!!!

 

[TheDeeMan]

RayG objects even more to your twisted logic, which goes something like this:

1. God is love
2. Love is blind
3. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God

RayG

I'm sorry, but that's just too damned funny.

Dee

 

[Marcus]

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

He really clinched it when he made the claim that he wasn't avoiding questions and then proceded to avoid questions. I'm several days behind on this thread, but it is a safe bet that up on the current page the questions remain unanswered.

 

[SweatyYeti]

It's a good thing the true skeptics on this site are open-minded enough to accept all possibilities until the evidence points us in a particular direction!!!

Absolutely, GT!

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."

....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...

What about a (Bigfoot) genus which evolved, say, from bears?

"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!""