Bigfoot

You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that eyewitness reports are more acceptable than hard evidence - they aren't.As for evidence about other living creatures in the same environment, I'm actually the one pointing out that there are, in fact, living creatures in that enviornment.Look, I'll try to make this clear.What I am saying is, it's unreasonable to make statements like "there isn't enough food to support this animal" if you can't settle on whether or not the animal is an herbavore or an omnivore.Likewise, it's unreasonable to say that because gorillas eat shoots therefore this animal must eat shoots.Or to say, because humans require fishhooks to catch fish, this animal must require fishhooks to catch fish.I'm NOT saying that because these arguments against Bigfoot are poor arguments, therefore Bigfoot must be true.They can be bad arguments AND Bigfoot could be completely fictional. It doesn't change the fact that they are bad arguments.As I've said before, several people have posted good arguments here, damn arguments, arguments which are persuasive in convincing people that this thing does not exist. Further, I've pointed out that there's no concrete evidence that it does exist.So, given that there is no concrete evidence for, and persuasive arguements against - the conclusion is that it is very likely that this thing does not exist.However, that does not excuse sloppy arguments like the ones I sited.I fail to understand how or why you would disagree with that.

But it's the creatures that are living in that environment that argue against Bigfoot.There are no (other) large, solitary primates living year-round in that environment, so it is reasonable to conclude that the environment is not conducive to year-round habitation by large, solitary primates. The types of food available and the digestive systems of other creatures living in that environment are acceptable evidence. When we observe that there is no herbivorous or omnivorous large, solitary primate living in that environment, it is reasonable to conclude that it's because there isn't enough food.Why don't Bigfootists refute that argument experimentally? Spend a winter in the mountains with no tools, no fire, no shelter - and without leaving any trace of your existence. You're still slinging the word "fact" around too casually. You haven't established that the arguments against Bigfoot are "bad". Nor does it excuse sloppy "refutations" like the ones you used.Nor does it excuse bad behaviour.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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?

This is incorrect. It would be reasonable to conclude this if the area we were talking about abutted an area with other large primates.One would presume that rainforests of Brazil would be capable of supported large primates, however there are none there. Sure, if you look at ALL the creatures living in that environment. You can't say, we elk live there and they are herbavores, therefore this thing must be an herbavore.Bears, humans, wolves, wolverines, etc... there are lots of animals other than herbavores existing in this area. Again this hinges on the idea that other primates have access to the ecosystem.Well, here I have to assume that you are excluding humans on the basis that we are not either "large" or "solitary", since obviously we are omnivorous, primates and living.I disagree with the idea that we aren't "large" - but we could quibble over that forever.As for solitary, it's true that we as a species are gregarious. However, not all primates are. And, while we rely on cooperation and tools in order to obtain food, it's largely because we are virtually incapable of collecting it any other way - an any enviornment, let alone this one. Well, this would be a fairly worthless experiment wouldn't it? I mean, why don't we disprove eagles by having people experimentally leap of cliffs flapping their arms?We don't because we don't have wings. We are poorly adapted to be able to accomplish the task.If the bigfootists are correct, we're talking about a primate which, at the very least, has a great deal more hair than we do.But, let's focus on the last part of your suggested experiment - "without leaving any trace". This is essentially the "no evidence for" argument. That's fine. That's completely acceptable to me.It's totally reasonable to say - "I refuse to believe in anything I don't have any evidence for."It's not reasonable to say - "I can disprove everything I don't believe in because I can make up any "facts" I want."

The argument here is about omnivorous versus herbavore.I agree that if Bigfoot is a herbavore, it is unlikely that he would have likewise developed a rumen, and as such there would not be enough food.However, if we are talking about an omnivore, suddenly there is A LOT more food available in the Pacific Northwest - everything from grubs to rabbits to fish to deer.It's a radically different equation.

Actually neither of those is the question here. The issue is not "does this thing exist"? The issue is "should experts make claims that they can prove that this thing can't exist if they don't have enough information."Me: Nator: If he didn't make up the facts, then where did he come up with a population in the "thousands"? How did he determine that bigfoot was an herbavore?Is Q pointed out in post 54: You have to admit that the calculations for "thousands" of animals vs "25-50" animals would be, at least slightly, different.Sure, it's more fun to say "thousands", but if we're going to really disprove it, why don't we say that a sustainable number would be fifty million. Then there would really wouldn't be enough food, would there?

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.If we are talking about an omnivore, and an apex predator in particular, there is significantly more food available in the Pacific Northwest.

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.

What would that presumption be based on? How would that presumption differ from the presumption that another environment would not be capable of supporting large primates? Nobody is saying that. (Strawman.) That's not the issue. If most of the sightings are of solitary creatures, it's reasonable to conclude that it is probably solitary. On the other hand, when we see one human, it's usually reasonable to conclude that there are other humans nearby - because we do normally see humans in groups.The issue has been raised that creatures of that size could not gather enough food without some kind of collective effort. Then you need to explain how a creature of approximately our size (and presumably similar food requirements) could do it.That's where the whole primate/non-primate, herbivore/omnivore issue came from: Bigfoot is presumed by believers to be a primate. Therefore, it would have a primate-like digestive system. (Evolution.) You're welcome to wear clothes for the experiment - just don't use any tools or shelter.(I notice you have the creationist's aversion to experimentation. ) And nobody's doing that. (Strawman.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If bigfoot is a descendant of gigantopithecus, then it is more likely to be an omnivore: evidence on gigantopithecus teeth show them to be general omnivores, not just strict herbivores as previously thought (sasquatch: legend meets science", page 92)Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

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

"Solar energy fuel"?Is this argumentation that you expect me to take seriously? And it goes without saying that if they can't store enough of the one that takes the least space, they can't store enough of the ones that take more space.As I've been saying, and as you've been ignoring, the laws of physics set boundary conditions. We don't need to know how much fossil fuel it would take to get from here to there if it's abundantly clear (and it is) that they couldn't possibly bring enough nuclear fuel, for instance.Boundary conditions. It's pretty simple if you're willing to approach the problem reasonably. Is there some reason you're unwilling to do so? I guess it's just easier to call me a racist. They're boundary conditions. If they can't make it from Alpha Centuri, they certainly can't make it from anywhere farther away.Simple logic. It's mind-boggling to me that you can't seem to follow it. If they can't do it in the best possible case, then they can't do it in the practical case. Is this really a thought process that you've never encountered before? I don't understand how that could be the case. You don't understand how your responses have consequences? It should be obvious. You respond to the objection that there's not enough plant life to support a herbaceous Bigfoot - well, no problem, Bigfoot is suddenly a fish-eater. Except that you can't eat fish during the winter because the water ices over and the salmon stop running. The fish eaters you mentioned solve the problem by either using tools to prepare the fish for storage, or by hibernating through the winter to obviate the need to eat.Which does Bigfoot do? No primates are known to hibernate, and nobody believes Bigfeets construct smokehouses.That puts you in a sticky wicket. Bigfoots can't survive the winters, according to your own arguments. Since it's winter every year, that makes it somewhat of a problem to suggest that Bigfoot is living up in the PacNW.Of course, your only rebuttal is to act like reducto ad absurdum is some kind of unfair double standard, biased against your position. That's the standard response of kooks, of course. He can't not be. He can't eat sunlight and rocks, Nug, and if he's not a tool user, hunting bears and deer are out of the question. Fish won't support a primate year-round since the fish stop in the winter, and again, you've objected to the idea of Bigfeets running a chain of backwoods smokehouses. You've disputed that he hibernates, too.So which is it, Nug? What does Bigfoot eat all winter? From your arguments we can conclude - nothing at all. Because there's no such thing as Bigfoots. Aren't you assigning an arbitrary population density when you say it exists? Oh, that's right. It's ok when you make stuff up, but it's not ok when I draw reasonable conclusions from your assertions.C'mon, Nuggin. Who the hell do you think you're fooling with this stuff?