Bigfoot

quote:

---

I have not said this.

---

Nuggin, you compared our ability to surmise what a large primate living in the Pacific NW would likely eat to our ability to know the kind of fuel aliens would use in their spaceships.How much do we know about alien spaceships compared to how much we know about the food requirements of primates?That's right, we don't know the first thing about aliens, their spaceships, nor the fuel they would use.However, we do understand quite a bit about the nutritional needs and eating behavior of primates living in various places around the world.So, when you said that the amount of information we have to draw from to suppose the nutritional needs of a large primate living in the Pacific NW was just as little as the amount of information we have about the kind of fuel aliens would use in their spaceships, it was an incorrect comparison.I hope you accept this and do not make me explain it to you again.

quote:

---

Nor have I made claims like "it eats rocks".

---

But you did compare what we know about the eating habits of large primates to what we know about the fuel requirements of aliens' space ships.When I asked, "What, you think they photosynthesize or eat rocks to survive or something?", it was a rhetorical question about your apparent claim that we are just as ignorant about the fuel needs of primates as we are about the fuel needs of alien spaceships.We aren't.

quote:

---

Use what you know about primates! Please! I'm not saying don't.

​

What I am saying, and this is the "justify that position" part, is that you can't pick 1 type or primate and say everything that applies to this one applies to all primates.

---

Some things about primates DO apply to all primates according to the information we have.

quote:

---

In other words, humans aren't forced to eat only what gorillas eat, and yet we are both primates.

​

It's ridiculous to say, there's a hypothetical primate out there and it eats EXACTLY what gorillas eat.

​

But when I suggest that this may be an omnivore, that the area is plentiful in fish and wildlife - suddenly I'm the crazy one.

---

I don't think that anyone here has proposed that Bigfeets MUST have the same diet as Gorillas.I am afraid that you're the crazy one for ignoring the fact that the only other omniverous primates living in the general area use a LOT of technology to preserve food over the long, harsh winter because food is very scarce during that part of the year. Omniverous primates living in other parts of the world do not preserve food at all.

quote:

---

Addionally, and once again, notice that I am not suggesting that Bigfoot eats anything which no other primate eats. I'm not saying it eats pine needles. I'm not saying it eats snow. I'm not saying it eats dirt. I am saying that if we can eat fish, why can't it eat fish?

---

How does it get the fish?How does it get the fish when the streams and rivers freeze over?If it is a fish eater, why hasn't one ever been properly sighted/trapped/filmed/photographed during the salmon spawn, when it is really is possible to literally catch a fish with your bare hands?Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : quote boxes

The difference of opinion is primarily about what constitutes a valid conclusion from the available evidence for Bigfoot. The pro-Bigfoot side seems to be erring on the side of seeing possibility in a scarcity of evidence, a scarcity that is readily conceded, while the anti-Bigfoot side seems to be engaging in the fallacy of trying to prove a negative, i.e., to demonstrate scientifically the impossibility or at least sheer unlikelihood of Bigfoot.I think the pro-Bigfoot side is taking pretty much the common course for a phenomena for which there is practically no evidence, and certainly no hard evidence, and where there has been a history of so much fakery, chicanery and gullibility. With almost no evidence to constrain speculation, all things are possible.For the anti-Bigfoot side, this means that there are no hard assertions against which to argue. Any legitimate objection will simply cause the pro-Bigfoot side to morph the proposal in order to evade the objection, something very easily done since there's no evidence to constraint speculation.In other words, this discussion has to shift its focus somewhat in order to take on more of the character of a scientific discussion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and those arguing scientifically have to remember this rule. What can be done scientifically is to point out the paucity of evidence, and to put it in context by listing all the other speculated phenomena which have comparable amounts of evidence, e.g., UFO's, alien abductions, ghosts, ESP, pyramid power, magnetic bracelets, homeopathy, therapeutic touch, assisted communication, and so forth. Once that point has been made, then I think further discussion only leaves the realm of the scientific, with both the pro and anti sides taking advantage of the lack of evidence to engage in speculations about what is and isn't possible.The pro-Bigfoot side has to keep in mind that the absence of contrary evidence doesn't mean something is real or possible. Science focuses on phenomena for which we have positive evidence, and once a hypothesis is formed it attempts to falsify the conclusions. The hypothesis most discussed in this thread is that there is a population of large primates living in the Pacific Northwest. Falsifying this hypothesis requires examining every inch of the Pacific Northwest, and so the hypothesis cannot in any practical sense be falsified. In other words, the hypothesis isn't scientific, and so there's no point arguing against it in the hope that is can be falsified. It simply isn't possible.So I think the primary challenge is for the anti-Bigfoot side to try to put their position on a scientifically valid footing and avoid the pursuit of goals which aren't really scientifically possible.--Percy

quote:

---

Everywhere. Go back a few posts and you'll find a link to a map of Native American tribal territories. Despite what's been claimed, the people living on the shore were not the only people in the Pacific Northwest.

---

Oh? There are or were American Indian settlements everywhere over the Pacific NW? As in, they live year round in the same place?

quote:

---

We exploit seasonal differing food sources because we are generalists.

---

What food is available in the middle of winter?

quote:

---

I'm assuming that what you are really asking is, why don't chimps live in the savanah or the sahara or any other African enviornment? The answer is, I don't know. I don't claim to know.

---

No, that's not waht I was trying to say.what I was pointing out was that the omniverous primates we know of either live where there is a ready supply of food all year round becasue they live in a very warm, lush jumgle, OR they make use of a great deal of technology to obtain and preserve food in areas where food is not abundant all year long.

And yet, Crash declared that he could accurately predict how much space they would need to the degree that he could disprove them.I'm not saying we know the same amount about animals as alien spaceships. We know far more about animals. I chose alien spaceships on the hope that something so extreme would at least get Crash to recognize that he doesn't know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING.But since he knows what these imaginary aliens eat and breathe and use for fuel and where they come from and how long they are willing to travel, I guess there's no hope in convincing him.As such, I've abandoned his posts. Don't you start getting pissy now. This is no different than when we were talking about nukes as an extreme example of guns.I am not saying aliens = animals. Just like we were not saying nukes = guns.I am saying that you don't get to make up data and then declare something proven or disproven based on the data you've made up. Sigh.Yes, Nator, some things do apply to all primates. And THOSE things are not in question. No one is saying that these animals don't breathe or don't reproduce or aren't carbon based.However, from post to post, they have been restricted to the characteristics of one primate or another.They MUST be gregarious, because gorillas, chimps, humans are gregarios. But Oranutans are not.They MUST be herbavores because gorillas and Oranutans are herbavores. But Humans and Chimps are not.They MUST be tropical, because gorillas, orangs and chimps are. But humans are not.No where have I disputed any of the claims which hold true for ALL primates. All I ask is that you don't arbitrarily decide that what applies to gorillas must apply to this thing, but ignore what's going on with other primates.What's wrong with that? What's wrong with saying, "Hey, it wouldn't be the only primate which is an omnivore". This is a good point, and if we could extract it from the other bullshit, I'd be happy to address it. However, I'm having to explain over and over and over why I'm not claiming Bigfoot is an alien, or why I'm not claiming bigfoot is a ruminant.Like hell I'm going to start discussing YET ANOTHER point when I'm being strawman'd on EVERY OTHER POINT.How about we get what I'm saying straight, then we move on. Otherwise, I'm just going to be cutting and pasting from previous posts. Jesus christ, what's wrong with you people. Did Crash hack Nator's account or something?Bears eat fish. Bears do not eat ONLY fish. Humans eat fish. Humans do not eat ONLY fish. I'm suggesting (and clearly you are not understanding) that perhaps Bigfoot eats fish, but DOES NOT EAT ONLY FISH.As such, Bigfoot would not sit by the side of a frozen river and die of starvation for the lack of fish. Well, first of all, it's frequently possible to catch fish with your bare hands. Do "fish" "bare hands" in google or youtube and you'll see what I mean.But more importantly, "why hasn't one ever been properly sighted/trapped/filmed/photographed"?Because it's VERY LIKELY THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST! You can't take a photograph of what's not there.But, that doesn't change that fact that Crash (or these "experts") can claim to disprove something based on information THEY MAKE UP.If you are willing to accept that 1) Crash knows everything about everything, and 2) that anything he makes up is necessarily 100% correct, then you have to be willing to accept that he can disprove the existance of ANYTHING simply by MAKING SHIT UP.I'm unwilling to do that.Maybe you are? More power to you and the cult of Crashfrog.But when he declares that a viable population of California Condors MUST be in the thousands and that they can't eat fish, you better be willing to tell those biologists studying them that it's time they move on.

Thank you for your clear and encompasing post.I agree with the bulk of what you said, however, there are a few things I'd like to clear up. I'm not claiming that "all things" are possible. Only what's true for other primates. And, this is certainly not my position. I have stated quite clearly that the lack of evidence, particularly in the hands of those most likely to obtain it (field biologists) is a very good indicator that this thing does not exist.My position is that it does exist, or even that the lack of disprove means it does exist.My issue is with so called "experts" who make declarations based on data they make up.

Are you asking, did they literally live in the same hut/village year round, or are you asking did they live in the same territory year round?Hut/village - not
territory - yesThe native american tribes living in northern Idaho did not pull up stakes and move to the shoreline of Oregon every winter. Just didn't happen. Most plant material is not available during the winter, aside from maybe roots and nuts buried beneath the snow.However, other animals, including ones which survive ONLY on plant matter (deer, elk, etc) survive these winters.As do animals which feed on them (wolves, wolverines, mountain lions).Please note I am leaving off hibernating bears! I can't believe I have to make a point of what I'm NOT saying in every single post, but it is what it is.So clearly, this is not a barren wasteland once the snow falls. Yes. I agree. Those that we know about fit into either catagory. I don't have an argument with this statement.Do you know why? Because you aren't making shit up.If you said, "there's no way for thousands of Bigfoots to survive without building a smokehouse" then I would say, as I have in the past, "Where are you getting this thousands number?"

You're bang on with that, Ned.

Please allow me to set before you the same arguments I made to Nuggin. He had no response except for a paroxyism of personal attacks, but perhaps you can show me where I'm going wrong.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think that anyone can dispute that this is true; but we might disagree on how extraordinary a claim actually is.Proof by contradiction is the method of disproving a premise by showing how it leads to an impossible conclusion. If logical inferences about Bigfoot, based on the qualities Bigfoot proponents assert, lead to conclusions that are essentially impossible, then that's considerable evidence that there is no such thing - that the claim of Bigfoot is basically too extraordinary to be believed.Perhaps its a moot discussion, since the evidence level currently is zero, except that's certainly not what Nuggin has been saying throughout, and he's consistently used personal testimonies of "Bigfoot sightings" to suggest that there's something there. His current stance that "there's no evidence for Bigfoot" is only something that he's adopted in the last 100 posts or so.Nuggin is saying there's evidence for Bigfoot; I don't know how he can deny that and expect us to take him seriously. What I've been doing is attempting to show what objections there are besides "there's no evidence", objections that would render the Bigfoot claim very extraordinary indeed - too extraordinary to be believed. But that is no rule - absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that's well-known. Every reasonable person considers absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. How else would you detect absence except by an absence of evidence? How else do I know that I need to go buy milk at the grocery store, except for the absence of any evidence that there's still milk in my fridge?"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is the counter-reasonable nonsense people say when they're trying to defend the existence of something they don't have any evidence for, and it's surprising to see someone as intelligent as yourself fall for it. It's a clearly transparent dodge. Bigfoot proponents aren't just asserting a creature. They're asserting a primate who lives in a specific region, and while we may not know anything about Bigfeets, we do know things about primates and the Pacific Northwest region - I've been there many times. The existence of primates and the PacNW are amply substantiated, and their qualities are well-known, and they can guide our speculation without us leaving scientific realms.Indeed science could hardly proceed if we were unable to speculate about what it would be like if something were true; or what we would need to make a certain kind of observation. That's how experiment design proceeds - "what would be different if this as-yet undetected thing were true?" - and it's fallacious to suggest that there's anything unscientific about making reasonable extrapolations from another side's assertions.If those reasonable extrapolations lead to contradictions, or contradict observation, that's further evidence that one side is making a claim much more extraordinary than the evidence they've marshalled for it; it's one way of settling the debate about the sufficiency of the evidence.

Because it would be the only primate ever known to eat fish, hunt deer, stockpile nuts, and live in high timberland, all without any tool-using, clothing-making, or structure-building.That's a pretty extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. But we know you don't have any because your Magic Bigfoot has whatever qualities are necessary to answer the objection in front of you, and then all those qualities disappear before anybody else can draw conclusions from them. Funny, that. What else does he eat, Nug? Leprechaun turds? Your idea that Bigfoot is outrunning forest deer and strangling them to death was so ludicrous you abandonded it after 2 posts.If they're up there, they have caloric needs. Times 50, if we can agree on that. It doesn't have to be thousands, but it pretty clearly has to be a lot more than one. Not that we made up. That you made up. I've injected nothing into this thread that hasn't been a completely logical extrapolation from assertions you've been making, either explicitly or implicitly. The California condor is going extinct, you know. There's less than 300 suspected to be alive. (Honestly I think that information largely disputes Quetzal's claim that you can have as few as 50 in a viable population. Less than a thousand is most typically a sentence of extinction.)

Helloo nuggin Yes I have the book at home. it is a very good read, and as said, answers a lotta objections people bring up. You may find interesting the section on hibernation facinating (the "Fat tailed Dwarf Lemur", a Primate who hibernates (189-90). I guess i'll be accused shortly of stating that sasquatch is a lemur (which i haven't) soon, hehehehe Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

this book also debunks the idea that a ssquatch would't get enough food to survive winter in the pacific northwest, mentioning lichens, clams, "lush vegetation" and animals on the le bigfeet menu (page 191)

Mountain clams? Are those like "mountain oysters"?

Clams on mountains? never heared of such, but quite a few sightings are reported on "clam beaches" which are rich in things like "shellfish" and other stuff (page 191).btw: you know about "lamb fries"??Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

It actually depends on the species. MVP is being pushed off the conservation skyline because the calculations are squishy - and no one has been observing any given species for 100, 500, or a thousand years (the three mutually-contradictory timeframes commonly cited) to see if the calculations match reality. Some researchers use X number of generations, as well. However, although the calculations take into consideration both deterministic and stochastic threats, they are really not much more than "best guess". The two primate species I mentioned in my previous post are "95% probability of survival for 100 years" calculations, based on ecological requirements (space, nutrition, and avoidance of inbreeding depression, mostly), and are used for protected area design in the tropics. I'll let you know how things weork out: we're planning on ultimately re-introducing approx. 50 red howlers into our reserve (about four groups of 12-15). Ask me in 100 years if it worked .Of course, to bring this back in the vicinity of the topic, this doesn't help nuggin. Most studies on MVP for primates indicate that for a species (not a local population) to survive at an ideal 97%/40gen rate the MVP IS in the 1000's. Estimates for pongids, for instance, indicate that a successful conservation strategy needs 5000-7000 adults (simiang (Symphalangus) and orang-utan (Pongo)). IOW, the larger the primate, apparently the larger the population needed for the species to survive.

One problem trying to do any MVP calculations on "Bigfoot" is that based on the reported observations Big Foot literally has "Big Feet" and is a world class athlete, or there are a Blue Brazillion of them.If we went by Nuggin's logic as display by the maps used by him to show where Native American tribes lived, Big Foot lives all over North America, and has clubs world-wide.He lives in the Pacific Northwest, on down the mountains to California; in the Pine Forests of Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia; the Swamps of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Georgia; all up and down the Appalachians and that is just in the US.There seem to be three possibilities.One is that there is a small population but that they are hyper migratory and able to cross the continent in a matter of days without being seen. Remarkably, in the 75+ years since the US Highway system was built and the 50+ years of the Eisenhower Interstate System, not on Big Foot has become roadkill.The second is that there are several clans or varieties, a New Mountain Big Foot, Old Mountain Big Foot, Piney Forest Big Foot and Swamp Big Foot. But then each of those types must then contain at least the MVP.The third possibility is that Big Foot does individually live in all of those areas. If that is the case, simply based on the number of various places where Big Foot has been reported, the population must be in the thousands and a MVP must exist in each of the locations nation-wide, placing a lower limit of total population at some tens of thousands of individuals.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion