Posted August 20 2008 - 06:11 AM
| Originally Posted by TravisR |
What if their numbers are extremely small or they've gone extinct? IF Bigfoot exists/existed, it's not like there's lots of them or they most likely would have been discovered already.
Well, the "experts" say "There are only estimates. The informed estimates range from roughly 2000 - 6000 individuals for all of North America" from the site linked elsewhere.
also from the site, which is the main problem with all this mythical beats, paranormal things...
On the matter of Physical evidence:
| The assertion that there is absolutely no physical evidence is absolutely false. There is more physical evidence than most people realize. Physical evidence is found every month in various areas across the country. Distinct tracks that do not match other animal tracks, hairs that match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all "physical evidence." |
The presence or absence of "physical remains" is a wholly different matter. "Physical remains" means body parts, or fossils of body parts. Though mammals may leave tracks, scats and hairs behind, they do not leave body parts behind very often. Body parts of mammals are only available when they die. Thus availability of physical remains is initially determined by population size and lifespan. A rare species with a long lifespan will leave very little physical remains, collectively, for humans to find. The probability of humans actually finding and collecting and identifying those remains before they are completely reabsorbed into the biomass complicates the "physical remains as evidence" equation dramatically.
The sections below address scenarios such as natural deaths, road kills, and hunter kills.
So theres lots of evidence, and no evidence... there is at least "hairs that match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all "physical evidence.
" Hairs! Poo! Man, they must have TONS of DNA samples and such to confirm without a doubt that bigfoot exists. Except... none of it's on the site. Sure, they got the Patterson film (not conclusive proof) and howls recorded, but none of the hair and poo reports from a recognized scientific body. And before you say that recognized labs ignore this stuff, your wrong. When a hair sample showed up in Alberta in 2006, a proffesor at the University Of Alberta (one of the leading research hospitals in the world) studied it. It was Yak hair, from a carpet. but it shows that people will study the evidence, if there is evidence.
Science isn't about disproving, it's about confirming. so far, the evidence to confirm Bigfoots existance is non-existant.
Posted August 20 2008 - 07:30 AM
LOL! the Discovery Channel website has a report on the suit, with notes from the researchers.
| Two researchers on a quest to prove the existence of Bigfoot say that the carcass encased in a block of ice -- handed over to them for an undisclosed sum by two men who claimed to have found it -- was slowly thawed out, and discovered to be a rubber gorilla outfit. |
They paid for it. Which is why the hoaxers keep doing this....
| The thawing process was sped up and the exposed head was found to be "unusually hollow in one small section." |
LOL. It's a fucking mask! No shit it was unually hollow. And they had to wait for the feet to be exposed to realize it was rubber? WTF? If they are this oblivious to man made materials, how is ANY supposed evidence to be taken seriously?
Why this is so funny to me is if this is the picture they were going off of to buy it...
then really, they should of realized it was fake within about 5 seconds of being in the same room with it!
This is why I love bigfoot stuff so much. If we ever found a live one, it would be amzing, but till then, the comedy of errors in all these false ones are comedy gold.
Anecdotal evidence just doesn't equate with physical evidence and doesn't enter into any kind of scientific enquiry on the subject. Maybe if there is enough of it, it can point to areas that require further study. And when you do the further study and find nothing...
Posted August 20 2008 - 10:54 AM
| 3 reasons that Bigfoot is real: |
You mean "3 reasons that Bigfoot MIGHT be real".
Not having spent much time looking into the details of Bigfeet, I've never heard that. But off the top of my head two things spring to mind: 1) when I leave hand prints or bare foot prints in the dirt, do I leave my dermal ridges clear enough so that a cast would pick them up? I doubt it... 2) the simpler solution is that those ridges are actually created during
the process of creating those casts. I don't know of course, but it certainly sounds more plausible to me.
By the way, what would a group of Bigfeet be called? A herd? A pack? A Biggle?
Unidentified sounds in the woods. Again, that could be numerous things. And likely completely different things on each recording - I highly doubt that the many recordings made all sound similar.
| 3-Again with the eyewitness accounts |