Bigfoot

quote:

---

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.

---

Various scenarios about where bigfeets live, what they eat, etc. have been brought forth.Then the problems with those scenarios are discussed.I don't see that Crashfrog has done anything other than that.

OK, now this is where I think your thinking is letting you down.I asked; And you started telling me about what elk and wolves eat.Are you suggesting that a large primate eats what elk eat, or that they hunt in packs and have big teeth and can run really fast, like wolves do to get their food?I KNOW all the food doesn't disappear once winter hits, but the food that is available that is appropriate for an omniverous primate is not easily obtainable.That's why the only other omniverous primates in the area have to use lots of technology to survive.Why on earth would it matter what elk eat to an omniverous primate? Why would it matter what wolves eat to an omniverous primate that doesn't use tools?So, why bring those points up if they are irrelevant?

quote:

---

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?"

---

Pick any number of bigfeets you want to imagine live in the Pacific NW.Are you suggesting that they preserve food for the winter?If not, then why does it matter if they can fish with their bare hands if they can't preserve it for when the streams freeze over?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

That's what "winterkill" means, nuggin.ABE: On a slightly different note, although jar's post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it does bring up an interesting question. Given the fact that - as you note - the local indigenous groups were fairly widespread in the region in question, and given the fact that although many of the groups were fishers, they were all also hunters (whether opportunistic or continuous), has anyone excavated any middens? I mean, of settlements prior to the plagues introduced by Europeans. If so, have there been any discoveries of "bigfoot bones", or at least anomolous bones? These hunters basically killed and ate anything that moved, after all.Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This is more or less true as far as it goes. However, to make this a reasonable argument, we'd have to determine a point in time where the various populations of this putative species descended below the viability threshold. If (yet another "if") they were once widespread enough to survive as a species (remember the numbers necessary for large-primate viability), then we would expect to see at least some trace - no matter what ecosystem they inhabited originally. In this case, we're talking subfossil remains of either "bigfoot" itself or the intermediates between "modern" bigoot and Gigantopithecus or an equivalent. Given that the fauna (living and extinct) of the northern continents have been intensively studied over the years, and given that this organism apparently lives in multiple regions - many of which have been very closely scrutinized for fossils (especially of Late Pleistocene species - of which "bigfoot" must necessarily be one if it exists today), I would say that the utter and complete lack of any ancestral/modern remains anywhere is a strong indicator that the species doesn't/didn't exist. Not that it couldn't exist, but rather that it in fact didn't.It's quite fun to speculate on the existence of "unknown" species. About once a decade or so field experts find some "new" vertebrate (often relictual, or at best geographically isolated from its nearest relatives) quietly living in some remote area. A couple times a year they find something small (like an insect). My team just last year found a new frog species (now officially designated Centrolene yachanensis in the literature - Yay!!!). It's what keeps cryptozoology alive - although evidence for most of the putative species cryptozoologists are interested in is at the very best anecdotal, and at worst pure fabrication.This goes back to what crash has been trying to convey (IMO) - while absence of confirming evidence of any kind clearly does not allow us to state unequivocally that the organism doesn't exist, given this lack of evidence coupled with the very real ecological constraints on a large omnivore living in such marginal habitat, the physiological and behavioral adaptations necessary for simple survival, AND the necessity for the organism to have some kind of identifiable history in an area that has been more or less accessible and open to humans for at least the last 8-10,000 years, the likelihood of its existence seems vanishingly small. Unless and until someone comes up with confirming evidence, there's no earthly reason to accept its existence - even provisionally. Call it the agnostic stance.

It's not that it's completely irrelevant, it's that you've totally missed my point. I am NOT suggesting that Bigfoot eats what an elk eats. I am pointing that just because snow falls, then entire ecosystem doesn't just fall to pieces.I mention elk as a species which would still be alive during the winter, and I mention wolves as a species which survive primarily on those elk. Packs? No.Big Teeth? Well, many of the descriptions I've read say large canines. Here's a pic of a gorilla yawning, btw.
Silverback gorilla yawning and showing teeth (fangs)Run really fast? As I pointed out in different posts, a deer can easily outrun my dog, or a wolverine for that matter, yet both are capable of catching and killing deer. Additionally, more deer die of exposure and starvation than from predation, I haven't denied scavenging as a possilibity. People keep repeating this argument as if it was solid logic. Let's accept that as absolutely true.If humans and another primate occupy the same habitat and humans must use tools to survive there, therefore the other primate must use tools to survive there.You've just DISPROVEN the existance of Gorillas, Chimps and Orangutans.Congradulations. Wow, here we go again. I am NOT suggesting that Bigfoot eats ONLY FISH.I don't know how to make that sentence any clearer.

Yes, lots. I very seriously doubt it.If they had, you'd think it would be all over the various Bigfoot websites.But more importantly, since Bigfoot doesn't actually exist, it would be sorta hard for them to have bones laying around.I think people here are SERIOUSLY misunderstanding the point of the thread.I am not trying to prove bigfoot exists. I can't. He doesn't.I AM saying that so called "experts" who claim to "disprove" something based on facts which they make up, are wrong to do so.For example: When someone says, "Bigfoot can't exist because it eats lepricaun turds and there are none available." They are arbitrarily limiting the diet, then declaring their logic sound. It's ridiculous.

From Message 1. From Message 186. So have you changed your position?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Exactly! We can't say it "couldn't" exist without more information about what it supposedly is.What you are saying here is basically this: We have no evidence for existance despite intensively searching the correct area, and looking back through time. Therefore it's likely this thing did not exist.Absolutely 100% correct. Perfectly reasonable.

Yes, and no.I have changed my position in favor of Bigfoot. I'll even give you credit for that on your post #whatever it was, but it was waaay back there.But I have not changed my position that these so called "experts" can not disprove something based on facts they've made up.This has been the body of the thread and what I continue to argue.

Where do you think gorillas, chimps, and orangutans live that humans can't live without tools?You're not making any sense - you're arguing that Bigfoot is magic, and therefore needs no way of dealing with the realities of being alive. He can just conjure food whenever he wants.That's clearly nonsense, and it's no response to Schraf's objections.

We know. Do you think that instead of arguing it by rote repetition, you could argue it by addressing rebuttals? Since we addressed this nonsense of yours about 30 posts ago, but you have yet to respond in any way except repetition.But I guess that's all the true believer really has, isn't it?

Everyone,I think Percy has had enough thanks.
Please make subtitles appropriate to the subject of the post.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Good point. Let's use this subtitle for a while

If the facts were made up, they would be wrong to do so. However, the facts that are used are known facts about ecosystems and what kind of environment is conducive for what kind of life. Sure there are surprises, but giving reasons for skepticism using an existing body of knowledge is entirely reasonable behaviour.As our knowledge grows, so to do our conclusions about what kind of species can and cannot sustaibably survive in certain environments without leaving significant evidence.Sure, a scientist that stands up and claims proof or disproof about anything should raise an eyebrow since we all know that science can do no such thing. A lot of this is due to the way scientists are portrayed in a lot of documentaries about these 'mysteries'. It doesn't make good viewing to have a guy talk about tentative and reasonable coclusions - you want a guy who talks in absolutes so you can say you got 'both sides' of the argument clearly on record.If there was a science paper done on it, I'd expect to see language like 'given the nature of the environment...it doesn't seem possible for...extremely unlikely...'.

So your entire argument is based on an alleged misunderstanding of the difference between "couldn't" and "doesn't/didn't"? Seems like a lot of effort for little purpose. Evolution has done stranger things, so I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a science background (especially biology or its subfields) would state "couldn't" in this context. I think you may be a victim of "science shorthand".