Bigfoot

quote:

---

One would think that of any of the Southeast Asian countries, we'd have known about animals in Vietnam.

---

The mammals were found in a deep, dense jungle in a place where there were few field Biologists.Not so surprising that they stayed undiscovered.When was the last time a undiscovered large land mammal was found in in North America?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And that's my point. If a plane can disappear into the forest, why can't an animal?

---

Becasue it's a plane, with a couple of people who most likely died in the crash or shortly thereafter.You are talking about a population rather than only a couple of individuals, are you not?That population is mobile? Has to eat to live? A population of large primates that lives there as part of the ecosystem and supposedly has done for many years?Come on, you've got to start applying your bullshit detector to your own thinking, Nuggin.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You asserted that there wasn't enough food.
You asserted that all the witnesses were drunk backpackers.
You asserted that the only way to catch fish is with fish hooks.

---

You asserted that Bigfoot exists.Go ahead, provide the evidence.

Nuggin, stop behaving like a petulent baby.I think that Crashfrog pretty much put the debate to bed way back in message 14.

quote:

---

Whether or not Bigfoot exists makes no difference on the issue that these so called "experts" are making claims which they can not possibly back up.

​

I might as well say, "There can't be UFO's because the aliens would have enough fuel."

​

How do I know what they use for fuel? Or how much they use? I can't know that. I can't make those sort of claims.

---

The thing is, we absolutely DO know what large primates living in the Pacific NW might likely use for fuel.What, you think they photosynthesize or eat rocks to survive or something?

quote:

---

He invents a few "facts" about population size and dietary requirements, then makes some outrageous claims about various animals inability to procure food for themselves.

---

No, I don't think he did that.I think he followed the claims of Bigfoot promotors to their logical conclusion.He took what those people say; "A large primate lives in the Pacific Northwest" and then thought about what the survival consequences of such a scenario would entail based upon what we know about primate physiology and that particular environment.He presented those to you and you pretty much just blew them all off and engaged in a bunch of "yeahbutwhataboutTHIS!?" imaginary ability or skill or attribute of Bigfoot that has nothing to do with reality.There are two questions here;Is Bigfoot real?
Is Bigfoot plausible?Until we get a live or dead Bigfoot, skull, body part, part of a skeleton, or anything like that, there is no way to answer the first question.The second question is what we've been discussing here.Crashfrog and others have been explaining the reasons why the existence of Bigfoot is not very plausible.I'm not "siding" with Crashfrog, by the way, when I ask you to stop posting petulant posts. It is sloppy debate and reminds me very much of Jon's behavior we all objected to in the Guns thread.

quote:

---

"there isn't enough food to support this animal in the pacific northwest".

​

That sort of statement requires information which is not known to the person making the statement.

---

Are you saying that nobody has any idea of the likely food requirements of large primates?

quote:

---

The argument here is about omnivorous versus herbavore.

---

No, actually the argument I was responding to was your claim that there is no way anybody could know anything at all about what a large primate living in the Pacific Northwest would likely eat.What aliens might use is a far more unknowable thing compared to what a primate might use, since we have a number of species of primate to look at and extrapolate from.AbE: You seem to be wanting to say that Bigfoots are primates, but we shouldn't use what we know about other primates to judge the plausibility of their existence.If so, can you justify that position? Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, I'm saying that the food requirements for gorillas (herbavores) are not the same as the food requirements for humans (omnivores) even though we are both large primates.

​

It's perfectly valid to say - there is not enough food in the Pacific Northwest to sustain a gorilla population.

​

It is not valid to say - there is not enough food in the Pacific Northwest to sustain a human population.

---

And where do humans live in the Pacific Northwest?How do they obtain their food throughout the year?Also, Chimpanzees are omnivores and have been observed hunting monkeys. They live in jungles where food grows all year round.

If you will recall, Crash took Q's correction.

quote:

---

C'mon, Nuggin. Who the hell do you think you're fooling with this stuff?

---

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

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.

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.