Bigfoot found??? - Page 8

Re: Bigfoot found???

Never knew that. Thanks for the info.

Still, there are plenty of others who do believe in a creator, and that belief does not mean the Big Bang didn't happen, nor was the Big Bang Theory made up to falsify a creator's existence.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Two quotes from Bryan excerpted below:



This unicorn goat and I are troubled by your selective use of "plausibility" as evidence of existence.





Brad

Looks like a good watch.  Although I doubt there are Bigfoot in Ohio.

I saw Bigfoot yesterday at Dairy Queen in Delafield, Wisconsin. It was having ice cream with Elvis.

That is one mild-mannered dude.  "You want to go Bigfootin'?  Then get the heck to the vehicles."

I introduce you to my new theory "The tribal cusp".

 

So, it takes thousands of Sasquatch to sustain their numbers?  Very well.  So be it.  In the late 60's early 70's, there were just a handful of Bigfoot left roaming the Pacific Northwest.  A few 'tribes' consisting of 3-7 creatures per tribe.  I'll use a  ballpark figure of 38 total Sasquatch left in the world in 1975.  Given that the average life span of an adult Sasquatch is 35 years(just a guess, but I feel an accurate one),  they should be extinct as of now.  This may explain the rash of sightings, and tracks found in the 70's early 80's.  As their numbers grew smaller, they ventured out of their territories in search for other Sasquatch.  But alas, The Bigfoot are now extinct.

 

I proclaim any Bigfoot sightings from this day forward to be completely fraudulent,  and hereby retire my Bigfoot hunter status.

I would be more than happy to discuss past Bigfoot sightings,  with other Bigfoot enthusiasts in great detail though.

 

Bigfoot was real, he just died out.

Your theory would only make sense if there was actual, indisputable evidence of Bigfoot, ever. :P

No Bigfoot? I suppose you also think Elvis is dead?

 

 

 Elvis isn't dead, son.  He just went home. 

 

 

I have an alternate theory:  Bigfoot is not real, and never was.  Reported sightings are a mixture of honest mistakes/misidentifications and deliberate frauds/hoaxes.  This theory is also consistent with the available evidence, plus it has the advantage that it doesn't postulate an unknown hominid species, thereby satisfying Occam's Razor.

 

How dare you !!!!!  

 

 

I know this is a couple of years old now, but reading over this whole thread again, I was struck by the contrast between these posts:
 

 

 

 

Concerning Bigfoot, there is no "gray area". I have yet to meet anyone that is on the fence of the subject. Most people I know are 100% certain that he does, or doesn't exist.

 

Concerning myself: I don't deal in absolutes. I have been more than receptive to all thoughts on the subject, and have even adopted my latest theory from the nay sayers own ideas.  

Sorry if I didn't make myself more clear.

 

This is no more true than it was the last time you claimed it.  My position has not changed; as I explained then, I am not 100% certain about bigfoot's existence, either way.  I'm skeptical of claims of his existence, which simply means that I'd like to see some evidence before seriously considering the possibility, but that's not at all the same as being certain he doesn't exist.

This point comes up all the time. I understand how labeling skeptics as "close minded" and "non believers" can be a powerful argument in the face of a complete lack of scientific evidence, but it is a strawman argument. In reality, most of the time the most closed minded are the believers, who claim to know for certain something for which there is no proof. It is no different than religion, except for many in this thread, they confuse acts of faith and psuedoscience as scientific fact, while simultaneously they berate real scientists as close minded.

Bigfoot just doesn't hold up to any type of critical thinking. And I'm sad since I would love Bigfoot to be real. :(

 

Not an actual fact, since Bigfoots have not proven to actually exist, you can't see they are or are not aggressive.

There was a Bigfoot sighting over London recently.

 

 

 

You call that big?

GIGANTOPITHECUS!

 

I'm sorry if I brought this up before, but I don't believe I have.  This is what most Bigfoot enthusiasts(including myself) believe a Bigfoot is. 

There is your proven scientific fact, there is your answer.  Perhaps if He was called Gigantopithecus from the start it wouldn't havebeen met with such an overwhelming ridicule. How they survived well beyond their extinction time line into the 20th century remains a mystery.  Here is your classic Xelocanth scenario.  Something thought to be extinct, but possibly wasn't.  Except instead of being caught, it was filmed.

That Gigantopithecus lived hundreds of thousands of years ago is a well-established scientific fact.  That some remained to the modern day--not so much.  If someone has evidence to suggest that Gigantopithecus are still around (as was found for Coelacanth), then by all means, they should come forward with it.  Publish it in scientific journals; share it with other researchers.  I, for one, would be very excited about such a discovery.  But no credible evidence has yet been proffered.

 

An additional point about Gigantopithecus specifically, is that they lived in Asia, whereas you previously postulated that Bigfoot lived in the US (the Pacific Northwest, specifically).  So even if Gigantopithecus survives, it's not your Bigfoot.

Edited by cafink - 5/5/11 at 11:19am

So we can find fossil remnants of a species that lived 100,000 years ago, thus proving that it existed, but we can't find evidence of the same animal existing today?

And as if I had to remind you Bryan, the Ceolocanth lived in the vast depths of the mostly unexplored ocean!, not in a fully explored and mapped forested area visited regularly by hunters, hikers, climbers, campers, fishermen, birdwatchers, loggers and tree hugging hippies.

Primarily in Asia, but certain numbers of Giganto could have migrated via the Bering land bridge.
 

 

Small numbers Jeff.  Like I said they are most likely extinct now, but if only a handful were left in the 70's(according to my theory)

it would be practically impossible to find the elusive creature.

Yes, they could have migrated via the land bridge.  They could also have found a magical portal which teleported them through time & space to modern-day North America.  Let me know when you make a claim which has even a modicum of evidence to support it.  You know, like fossils, specimens...that sort of thing.

Actually, it's never been filmed either. All supposed video evidence has been debunked/doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny which means that it is neither proof of bigfoot or anything else.

 

Zero is a small number. Finally we agree.

Also, one of the most elusive creatures on earth, with approximately 4000-6000 individuals over a habitat of 650,000 square miles, is the Snow Leopard. It lives in treacherous mountainous areas, above the treeline, in some of the most foresaken areas of the earth. Not only has it been filmed (by real scientists), there are skeletal remains, fur samples and stool samples that actually belong to the species

. . . and oh yeah, they have 400 of them living in zoos!

Proven scientifically....doubt very much that will ever happen as of now.  The sightings(by many reputable people) tracks, and audio recordings are all we have to go on.  Does everything need to be proven scientifically to exist?  I know you feel this way, but I have a strong belief that Bigfoot existed well into the 20th century.  I'm not part of the 'Flat Earth Society' yet you treat me as such.  Gigantopithecus(Bigfoot) could have survived, it may still exist.  I don't know, but the idea has merit, and is absolutely possible.

 

One more thing Carl, you may think me a 'lame brain' because I'm into Bigfoot.  But imagine this for a moment if you will:  You are given an opportunity to have dinner with legendary Bigfoot tracker Peter Byrne, and his beautiful(and much younger) wife Celia.  He is now 82 years old, and has tracked Bigfoot for 40 years(now retired).  Would you spend the evening entertaining his stories, and thoughts on the subject respectfully?  Or would you slam down your glass of wine and say " I'm not buying any of this".   Hypothetical, yes but personally I feel you would walk away from that dinner enlightened.  He isn't a joke, he is the real deal:

 

I'd rather sit down to dinner with Jonas Salk, Freeman Dyson, Margaret Mead or Dian Fossey.  Actual scientists doing actual science, not some hack out to defraud the world with pseudo-science.  But that's just me.

 

Also, if I did have the unfortunate opportunity of meeting that charlatan, I wouldn't just say "I'm not buying any of this."  I'd debate him on the facts and science, just like the conversation here.  And I'll bet a years pay that it wouldn't be me slamming down my wine in frustration.

 

 

Why do you think that is?  We have scientific evidence of the existence of animals that lived millions of years ago, animals that live miles underwater, animals that live in remote parts of the world.  New discoveries are being made all the time, so we obviously don't know about every single little species that lives in every nook and cranny, but that's not what we're talking about here.  For a gigantic ape to have lived hundreds of thousands of years after it's thought to have become extinct, and in a totally different part of the world than any fossil or other piece of evidence found, would require thousands & thousands of generations spread across a huge part of the globe.  Not to mention that there's a group of enthusiasts actively searching for it.  With all that, wouldn't someone find a single fossil?  Or any kind of credible scientific evidence that could be published in scientific journals or shared with other researchers?

 

No one is saying it's impossible for a bigfoot-type creature to exist (or have recently existed) in North America.  But with literally no scientifically credible evidence for such a proposition, what reason does one have to believe in it any more than in any other fantastical claim?

Edited by cafink - 5/9/11 at 5:22pm