Bigfoot

"Bigfoot" - the word - isn't a cypher, Nug. It has a definition. It's defined as a large, hairy hominid that's purported to live in the Pacific northwest.That definition comes with some baggage, since you're proposing a creature that lives on Planet Earth. Since it lives on Earth, it has to be related to other creatures. Since it's held to be a hominid, we can reasonably conclude that it shares hominid features.If Bigfoot exists, it evolved. And it didn't evolve from lizards. It evolved from other primates.They're not "massive assumptions." They're reasonable expectations intelligent people can develop from what you're asking us to consider. They're certainly no greater assumptions than the big one you're making - "Bigfoot exists." And if those assumptions reasonably lead to conclusions that are inconsistent with observation - like the observation that it would be essentially impossible to hide a population of thousands of large mammals in the United States. If we can determine the exact population status of animals like the California condor we can certainly be expected to find representative examples of a hypothetical large North American primate with a population of thousands, your ridiculous nonsense about airplanes notwithstanding.

Nuggin, what's your take on the Loch Ness monster, or el chupacabra, or the yeti, or alien abductions?

Well, we come from different places.I've stood next to someone hoping up and down and screaming about the flying saucer he was witnessing. It was just like what was described on the radio at the time (which is why we were looking). Windows, moving fast over the city, changing direction and speed abruptly and flashing with different colored lights on the edge.For several minutes he pointed and described it to me. He was very clear. It took me that long to figure out what he was actually looking at.

There are plenty of species out there who's numbers don't count in the thousands. There are many who's numbers are in the hundreds or even less. Hell, at one point there were only 4 California condors left.I'm not suggesting that the population of this species is robust. What evidence do you have that they are not? Unfair question? You asked why haven't they been hit by cars, I'm offering you a possible answer to that question. If you wanna play the evidence game, please show that all accounts were reported by drunk backpackers. This is a MASSIVE assumption on your part. It's tantamount to saying, "If I haven't seen it with my own eyes, everyone else in the world must be wrong."Your question was how can these things go completely undetected. They haven't. If they had gone completely undetected we couldn't be discussing them now. This is a dodge. I said "Presumably we accepted the existance of chimps in the past". I presume that your zoo is not a time travel zoo.Chimps today are proof of chimps today. They are not proof of chimps in the past. We accept that because there are chimps today, it is reasonable to assume there were chimps in the past. But until extremely recently we had no fossil evidence that this was true. Now you are trying to attribute to me what other people are saying.I agree, many of the kooks they talk to about Bigfoot are just that - kooks.Here's a little secret coming to you straight from Hollywood. Kooks make for GREAT TV. If you have a camera and you're reporting the news and you have two choices - a rational reasonable articulate person who witnessed the event and a long haired kook - Always go with the kook. I love it when people make statements like this. Crash, please demonstrate exactly how biologists figured out it was a quadreped from a handful of molars.Giganto is very poorly represented in the fossil record.Additionally, I'm not saying - Bigfoot DID descend from Giganto, I'm saying it's the most likely candidate.Given the extreme amount of shifting taking place in human origins in the last 10 years, I'd suggest that "best guess" is about as good as we can get at any given time.Could gig be a direct anscestor? Sure. Could it be a cousin? Sure. Could it be a contemporary? Sure. I'm just point to a recent, existing ape large enough to fit the bill. Given that these things were around for a couple million years in SE Asia and all we have to show for it is a handful of teeth, the lack of fossil evidence in North America is not exactly astonishing.Additionally, we're going back to the chimp argument. How could there be an animal here and not leave a fossil record? Same way the chimps did it. Alright Crash, now you are starting to piss me off.You make a statement to the effect that only people can catch fish and they need to use hooks. I point out bears catch plenty of fish and you jump to some sort of accusation that I'm making things up.Don't ask a question that requires a speculative answer if you are in turn going to attack me for speculating.I further notice that you COMPLETELY overlooked my point that there are people (humans) who catch fish with their bare hands on a regular basis.According to your reasoning these people have to have bear claws - now THAT's nonsense.Care to provide some sort of evolutionary explaination for these alleged "bear claw people"? Of course you don't. Show me where I claimed that? I didn't.In fact, my exact sentence was: "Plenty of protein in a deer". To the best of my knowledge ruminants DONT EAT DEER.But of course you would overlook that sentence, as it's an actual answer to your question and instead pick a tiny fragment of what I said to attack.So, I will respond in kind: Crash, how can you attack the existance of bigfoot while simultaneously claiming he's an alien? Are you kidding me? You mean the people that went out looking for the giant panda to prove it existed had NEVER had someone say "Hey man, there's a big black and white bear up on that mountain."OF COURSE they were described. They were described by witnesses.Did they get an official species designation prior to someone killing one? No.
Am I asking that you give Bigfoot a species designation? No.So what the hell is your point?

To predict the food needed to supply of population of an animal you would need to know several things, among them:How many of that animal are there?
What does that animal eat?
What is that animals metabolism?We can guess at the metabolism, basing it off other great apes. But Gorillas get by on plants along while we eat quite a lot of meat. Is Bigfoot an herbavore? Is it an omnivore?How can you make a prediction about the amount of food an animal needs to eat if you don't first determine WHAT it is that that animal eats. Once again, I disagree with your term "hide". Hiding implies that they are not seen.These animals are regularly seen.What we don't have is a dead one. Excellent work Crash. If someone has a point you can't address, simply call it ridiculous nonsense and move on.It's those kind of debating props that really ought to win you a gold medal.Which part is the most ridiculous do you think? That planes exist? That they fly? That they are made of metal? That we have a means of tracking them in the air? That they sometimes crash? That we sometimes can't find the crash - even though the plane is metal, it's a different color than it's surroundings, we know where it was when it went down and there's usually a better than average chance of smoke coming up from the crash site.Is it that you've never seen an airplane or a crash site? Is that why my point is ridiculous?Crash, believe it or not, there are things out there which you have not seen and yet they still exist. The world is not determined by your acknowledging it or not.

Don't want to take the debate too far astride so I'll be quick --Loch Ness is an unusual body of water which creates odd surface conditions - however, I do not believe it contains a plesiasore (spelling?).El Chupacabra - All the accounts I've seen of the goat sucker are from Puerto Rico and it's pretty clear that the livestock is being killed by wild dogs.Alien Abductions - Clearly there is an "abduction" phenomenia going on. Do I believe it's as a result of aliens, no.Yeti - Sure. Could there be a primate living in Nepal? Absolutely. Do I think it's 9 ft tall with huge fangs and massive claws like in the Xmas special. No.

Ned! you can't do cliff hangers like that. What was he looking at?

I don't care if a film doesn't "feel" fake. It could very well be just a higher sophistication of fakery.Get a body, then I will believe. I would not be surpised if the yeti in china is real. I would not be surprised if it is fake.Until such time as we got harder evidence I will be skeptical.

Right. And they're all going extinct due to encroaching human expansion.Your Bigfeet? They all live in the wilderness. The fact that you continue to talk about these organisms like we're just talking about one single animal further indicates that you're approaching this with your religious mind, not with your rational mind. Try not to forget how this works again, please. You make assertions, you're required to defend them with evidence. I'm not required to defend skepticism of assertions for which no evidence is given. Show me how many of your "observations" were made and recorded by research field biologists. But that's clearly nonsense - that argument can justify the existence of any mythical creature said to live "out there." You can assert the existence of fire-breathing dragons with that clearly fallacious reasoning.We're discussing something that has gone completely undetected, because what we're discussing has been made-up. Make-believe. That's how we can discuss something undetected - we're discussing made-up stories. I see. So, you're asserting that chimpanzees were created ex nihilo by God? Or by Bigfoot? I had no idea I was discussing with a creationist, which means it's basically fruitless to try to reason with you. The size. They're too big, especially around the jaw region, to stand on two legs. Ah, right. Those guys are kooks, but you're being completely reasonable. Sure. Maybe that should tell you something. If you can't respond to reasonable rebuttals - after you asked for them - without getting all pissy, then maybe you're not operating with the emotional detachment of a rational mind.Did you consider that, ever? That your belief in Bigfoot, an organism considered by the vast consensus of scientists to be imaginary, isn't based on the evidence - which you even admit to not providing - but based on an emotional attachment to the idea? Bears catch fish during the salmon spawning season, and they use the fats to fuel them during the long slumber of hibernation. It's how they survive the winter.Primates don't hibernate; they don't have the "plumbing" to do it and their diets aren't appropriate for it. Humans survived in that region by not living in the mountains but on the temperate coast, and they developed food preservation methods using all our uniquely human adaptations (communication, tool use, building.)I don't see how either of those could apply to Bigfeet. So you still have the problem of how the descendants of Eurasian apes survive brutal mountain winters - a problem that you just basically laughed off. Do you see yet why I don't think you're engaged in a rational process, here? That you're simply spoiling for an opportunity to vent against people who don't agree with you?Kind of the way Christians go out looking to be persecuted. It's a way of validating your belief. Certainly it's obvious there's no line of argumentation that could convince you that there's no such thing as Bigfeet. There's certainly no human civilization that has supplied itself by hand-fishing. And just think how ridiculous you're being. Based on no evidence whatsoever, you've proposed a large population of hibernating hominid ruminants who survive by tickling the fish right out of the stream.Uh-huh. I think you don't know what it means to "describe a species." I imagine that, on your planet, new species come with a little tag on their ear that tells us their taxonomy and their scientific name.But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a Bigfoot believer is completely ignorant of how biology is done. As I said, no species is described from eyewitness remarks - because eyewitnesses, especially laypeople, are extraordinarily unreliable. Particularly in areas with well-known legends about extraordinary beasts. My dad is completely convinced he's seen Nessie - all because of some ducks at Loch Ness. Of course, he at least saw something with his own eyes. What's your excuse?

Having spent a couple decades working and associating with Natural Resources folk, mostly field biologists, I'd like to inject a little bit about just what it is these folk do.First off, they very often spend their whole career in one particular area, and they get to know it better than even the best hunters. Where the very best hunter may spend a couple weeks a year out in the field, the field biologist is out there except during the grudging moments when dragged back in to actually write up his experiences.My experience has been they know the territory, know if first hand.How well do they know it?Pretty much in depth. A lot of their quality time is spent doing exciting things like mucking through scat, probing several day old carcasses, counting antler casts, going through maggoty piles of deer jaw bones to count teeth and other exciting activities.Much of their time is spent not where other people go, but rather where the animals go.These folk are trained observers of "Wildlife".They also work together.They love unexplained things.They love discovery.And they notice things that are out of the norm.Critters leave evidence.If it is a herbivore it leaves evidence in the plants eaten and excreted.If it is an omnivore it leaves evidence in the plants and animals eaten and excreted.If it is a carnivore it leaves evidence in the remains of animals eaten and excreted.If it moves, it leaves trails.If it is hunted, it gets caught.If it hunts, it catches.All of these leave signs.So far, no field biologist has found any evidence of any creature like Bigfoot.It would make a career.It would send kids to college.It would pay for the nice house instead of the apartment.It would let them take real vacations.But no field biologist has come forth.There is only one possible reason.They know that if they presented the evidence that proves Bigfoot exists, they would be moved into and office job away from the stink of rotting flesh, the bites of skeeters, the off chance of the rattlesnake bite or being shot by a poacher and maybe even kept from squishing scat through their fingers.It's a conspiracy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, it can't eat things that don't live in the Pacific northwest mountains, where it's held to live. So that narrows it down considerably.And it can't eat leaves and grasses, because primates can't digest all that cellulose. Gorillas don't eat plants, they eat fruits and shoots - high energy plant products that take a lot of water to grow. Not a lot of fruits growing near the treelines. Yet, you have no verifiable observations. Funny, that. Oh, I can address it. I just assumed it was so obviously stupid that neither of us would have to mention it. Guess I was wrong.You're talking about one airplane, but I'm talking about a population of thousands (otherwise, it would be extinct by now.)I mean, I think you're talking about one airplane - I mean you just asserted that airplanes go missing in Oregon all the time, without providing an example of a single one. I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to refute. Is it possible for one airplane to go missing? Yes. Is it possible to have a population of thousands of completely unique apex mammals living undiscovered within the United States? No, it's clearly not. Sure. I'm just waiting - in vain, I suspect - for you to provide a single reason why I should believe that a population of Bigfeets is one of those things. But if you have nothing to bring to the table but the classic Argument from Ignorance ("hey! You don't know I'm wrong, so I must be right!"), I suspect I'm going to be waiting a long time.There are more things dream'd of in your philosophy, Hamlet, than are in Heaven and Earth.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Sorry this took so long. Trying to dig up websites which correspond to stuff you see on TV isn't as easy one would think.Here's a really good page, part of a collection of pages on footprints.Here he discusses/tests dermal ridging.Is this "proof positive" - no. It's just a pretty good site discussing the topic.http://www.orgoneresearch.com/ridges_and_furrows.htm

In this case I was refering to the behavior of the people making the film (and in particular the dumb-ass behavior of these two teens). I'm not suggesting that the film is evidence of anything other than two teens owning a video camera. I'm just saying that they sure seem to believe that they are seeing something, as opposed to some of the cool and collected film makers which come across as hoaxers."Oh, I just happened to have a steadicam and was out filming my backyard for no reason when suddenly this thing walked from one tree to another. Then I stopped filming." -- That's one that "feels" fake cuz it is fake. And that's fine. I'm not saying you shouldn't be skeptical. What I am saying is that these experts can't disprove Bigfoot based on their calculations about population size or dietary requirements, etc.

Okay... and your point is? Are you now suggesting that Bigfoot exists and in large numbers? Guess what Crash, you don't get to play this game. You don't get to say "You have to prove everything you say, and I don't have to prove anything I say." It's bullshit.You made the assertion that there wasn't enough food to support a population of these animals. Where's your evidence? You CAN'T provide any, because in order to do so you would need to have more information about the animal's diet and the size of the population. THAT'S my point. Crash, that's not how this works. To quote you: "You make assertions, you're required to defend them with evidence".You made the assertion that - Where's your evidence? Really? Are there a lot of eyewitness accounts of fire breathing dragons I'm unaware of? To the best of my knowledge there have not be thousands of reported sightings of dragons over the last 100 years or so. Once again, Crash, something we has gone "completely undetected" would have NO EYEWITNESS accounts. It's sort of right there in the definition of "completely undetected." Wow, you are really flailing here. Perhaps you should take a breath and think before you go on.You asked why we didn't have many bigfoot fossils. I pointed out that we don't have many chimp fossils. You said that chimps are at your local zoo. I pointed out that those chimps are not fossils.If I'm the creationist here, how is it that you have such a poor grasp of the difference between a living creature and a fossil? I see, so because it has big teeth, it's necessarily walking on all fours. No knuckle walking, no partial bipedalism.Of course, T-Rex had really big teeth too, didn't it? I guess it must have looked really silly using those forelimbs when it tried to walk. But after all, 9 out of 10 dentists agree - big teeth = 4 legs.By the way, this is quite an assertion on your part. Care to support it with evidence? Clearly more reasonable than you. You're the one suggesting T-rex on all fours and a zoo full of fossil chimps. I'm just saying that the thousands of people in the Pacific Northwest who say they saw something may indeed be seeing something. No Crash, it's the complete double standard on your part that pisses me off. You ask me for a theory, I provide it, you demand evidence and insult me.You've provided dozens of your own theories here, and have yet to provide ANY evidence to support any of the things you are saying.In fact, I've pointed out that there is NO WAY for you to come up with any evidence to support what you are saying because you lack the information to come to the conclusions you are coming to.But still you don't respond with evidence, you respond with insults. Clearly a sign that you are on slippery ground and realize it. Once again, (for the 5th time?) the same "vast consensus of scientists" held mountain gorillas and panda to be imaginary as well. You keep bringing them up, and I'll keep repeating my point. Are you suggesting that Bigfoot is human? You keep bringing up the fact that humans use tools or humans smoke fish or humans live here or humans live there - but nowhere have I (or anyone else) asserted that Bigfoot is human. "Hello, Kettle? Yeah, it's me Crashfrog. Just wanted to call and let you know you're black." Excuse me? WHERE DID I POST THAT?Crash, you're clearly just posting here to be a prick. You are quite literally assigning me with positions that not only have I not taken, but in this EXTREMELY SHORT THREAD have already refuted.Sorry, Crash, but that shit just will not fly. Here's a perfect example of your "techniques"Here's what I ACTUALLY WROTE: But, it's MUCH MORE FUN to just quote mine one sentence and disregard the rest.Once again, you're true colors are shining through. Your behavior here pretty much proves you don't have a point, since you simply can not address the stuff I'm talking about without falsifying my quotes.

All good points, Jar. But I don't claim there is a conspiracy of field biologists.And while they do know their particular piece of the woods extremely well, I wonder if we can figure out which biologists are covering an area where there are sightings. That would be the guy to ask. Sure, if they had acceptable evidence. But, as we've seen above, the only acceptable evidence is a dead bigfoot.