why i don`t think bigfoot is in any way real

[kim]

You people have no idea what you're talking about.

And yes, that is a direct quote.

[Misanthropik]

(17-11-2012 04:57 AM)dj-hato Wrote:  these are the reasons

1. there is no evidence that large primates live in north american forests no carcasses of the ape nothing
2. how can a animal the size of bigfoot stay hidden when hundreds of believers comb the forests in search of it
3. an ape that size would leave marks in the forests just by sleeping and yet the lack of those signs is insane
4. there are only eye whiteness's and the little footage there is is blurry and easily faked its like when bigfoot shows up the person suddenly loses the ability to focus there camera

and that is why i almost certainly know its fake

1) There is much volcanic soil in the Pacific Northwest. This means that carcasses decay at a faster rate than normal.

2) The Pacific Northwest is much larger and much more untraveled than people seem to realize. The place is massive. There is plenty of space in which a group of primates can live without detection; especially when they're intentionally elusive.

3) How can we know if sleeping dens, grass-beds and forcefully-broken tree branches (at heights too great for most other animals to reach) are not from a massive ape-like creature? There are such "marks" in the forest(s), and we can't say, definitively, what caused them. This makes an ape at least possible.

4) The Patterson/Gimlin footage has been closely analized and picked apart numerous times over the years. Computer models have been constructed to analize the way in which "Patty" - the supposed sasquatch in the video - walks and moves. All tests have repeatedly shown that it could not have been a person in a suit. Additionally, there are blood and hair samples on record which show DNA not matching any known indigenous species (relative to the places from which they've been collected).

With these being the case, it's a bit soon to be saying that you "almost certainly know" that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Contrary to what you say, there are things to suggest that he does, and there are few reasons other than "it's unlikely" or "probably not" to suggest that he doesn't. At the most, one should be "agnostic" - if you will - about his existence. Evidence is showing that it is at least possible. What you personally (rather than empirically) believe after that point is up to you.

[dj-hato]

(17-11-2012 01:50 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  

(17-11-2012 04:57 AM)dj-hato Wrote:  these are the reasons

1. there is no evidence that large primates live in north american forests no carcasses of the ape nothing
2. how can a animal the size of bigfoot stay hidden when hundreds of believers comb the forests in search of it
3. an ape that size would leave marks in the forests just by sleeping and yet the lack of those signs is insane
4. there are only eye whiteness's and the little footage there is is blurry and easily faked its like when bigfoot shows up the person suddenly loses the ability to focus there camera

and that is why i almost certainly know its fake

1) There is much volcanic soil in the Pacific Northwest. This means that carcasses decay at a faster rate than normal.

2) The Pacific Northwest is much larger and much more untraveled than people seem to realize. The place is massive. There is plenty of space in which a group of primates can live without detection; especially when they're intentionally elusive.

3) How can we know if sleeping dens, grass-beds and forcefully-broken tree branches (at heights too great for most other animals to reach) are not from a massive ape-like creature? There are such "marks" in the forest(s), and we can't say, definitively, what caused them. This makes an ape at least possible.

4) The Patterson/Gimlin footage has been closely analized and picked apart numerous times over the years. Computer models have been constructed to analize the way in which "Patty" - the supposed sasquatch in the video - walks and moves. All tests have repeatedly shown that it could not have been a person in a suit. Additionally, there are blood and hair samples on record which show DNA not matching any known indigenous species (relative to the places from which they've been collected).

With these being the case, it's a bit soon to be saying that you "almost certainly know" that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Contrary to what you say, there are things to suggest that he does, and there are few reasons other than "it's unlikely" or "probably not" to suggest that he doesn't. At the most, one should be "agnostic" - if you will - about his existence. Evidence is showing that it is at least possible. What you personally (rather than empirically) believe after that point is up to you.

can you link me to those findings so i can examine the data and the sources my self

[Bucky Ball]

(17-11-2012 01:58 PM)dj-hato Wrote:  

(17-11-2012 01:50 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  1) There is much volcanic soil in the Pacific Northwest. This means that carcasses decay at a faster rate than normal.

2) The Pacific Northwest is much larger and much more untraveled than people seem to realize. The place is massive. There is plenty of space in which a group of primates can live without detection; especially when they're intentionally elusive.

3) How can we know if sleeping dens, grass-beds and forcefully-broken tree branches (at heights too great for most other animals to reach) are not from a massive ape-like creature? There are such "marks" in the forest(s), and we can't say, definitively, what caused them. This makes an ape at least possible.

4) The Patterson/Gimlin footage has been closely analized and picked apart numerous times over the years. Computer models have been constructed to analize the way in which "Patty" - the supposed sasquatch in the video - walks and moves. All tests have repeatedly shown that it could not have been a person in a suit. Additionally, there are blood and hair samples on record which show DNA not matching any known indigenous species (relative to the places from which they've been collected).

With these being the case, it's a bit soon to be saying that you "almost certainly know" that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Contrary to what you say, there are things to suggest that he does, and there are few reasons other than "it's unlikely" or "probably not" to suggest that he doesn't. At the most, one should be "agnostic" - if you will - about his existence. Evidence is showing that it is at least possible. What you personally (rather than empirically) believe after that point is up to you.

can you link me to those findings so i can examine the data and the sources my self

1. What other carcasses have been noted to be "missing" from the samples of those looked at for "fast decay", if "volcanic soil" is the problem. Are ALL other carcasses noted to be decaying faster up there ? How do we know that ?

2. What other "intentionally elusssive" massive primates have been found, and why and how would the evolution of "elusiveness" promoted their survival in the millions of years before the advent of h Sapiens ? What other hominid species evolved "elusiveness" as it's evolutionary strategy ? WHy would a massive primate need to evolve "elusiveness" before h Sapiens arrived ?

3. What exactly does "heights too great for most other animals to reach" mean, and why can't other creatures get "up there" ? What ARE the "most other animals" that can't get up there? WHat animals CAN get "up there" ?

4. What exactly did the DNA show ? Was it a hominid, or what percentage of the DNA in the sample found was hominid, or what other species did it most closely resemble ? Has a possible "divergence" point, based on the DNA mutations/differences from the other great apes been proposed ?

[Erxomai]

Maybe they're the lost tribes of Israel, or perhaps remnant Nephilim. I like to think they're survivors of a branch of Homo Erecti.

[Chas]

(17-11-2012 02:49 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Maybe they're the lost tribes of Israel, or perhaps remnant Nephilim. I like to think they're survivors of a branch of Homo Erecti.

Wouldn't you think it's just Canadian girls who haven't shaved their backs?

[Erxomai]

(17-11-2012 02:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(17-11-2012 02:49 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Maybe they're the lost tribes of Israel, or perhaps remnant Nephilim. I like to think they're survivors of a branch of Homo Erecti.

Wouldn't you think it's just Canadian girls who haven't shaved their backs?

You make a strong argument.

[Bucky Ball]

(17-11-2012 02:49 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Maybe they're the lost tribes of Israel, or perhaps remnant Nephilim. I like to think they're survivors of a branch of Homo Erecti.

Some day archaeologists are going to find packging for Viagra/Cialis and think "hmm, they seem to have 'optimistically' labeled themselves".

[Misanthropik]

1) http://agriinfo.in/?page=topic&superid=5&topicid=170 http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/index.html

2) Sorry, I can't find any linkable source that directly addresses information about the uninhabited regions of the Pacific Northwest. They can be found somewhere, but it'll take time to find them and I'm not gonna do all of your homework for you (Yes, a cop-out, because finding proof of empty woods seems a massive expense of energy for not much payoff: "See? Woods are empty. Moving on...")

3) I really need to link a source to confirm that grass-beds, large dens and forecibly broken branches exist? If we were talking about the existence/non-existence of deer, you'd accept that these things are found in the woods without a problem. Go hunting some weekend.

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcmW_D4p4U0

Another good source would be "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr. Jeff Meldrum. It's an information-filled, but very boring read. Painfully precise and in-depth scientific analysis throughout; while I prefer a good spooky story when it comes to Bigfoot. lol

Does Bigfoot exist? As others generally say: probably not. Certainly no reasonable person would bet a testicle on it. But as unlikely as he may be, there doesn't seem (as of yet) to be any real reason to believe that he doesn't exist. So, sasquatch-related agnosticism is the most healthy route, in my view.

Edit: Also, http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1000 If that doesn't convince you, I simply don't know what will. (jk)

[kim]

(17-11-2012 03:30 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcmW_D4p4U0

I don't have access to these vids right now, could someone tell me about them? I want to know about the DNA evidence, specifically.

I have no trouble considering an upright hominid like creature might be able to exist on the planet without us knowing about it, but I also think that if we find one, it's probably not quite our old friend Sa'tch. Maybe it is a species of bear we're not aware of... a really shy bear. And probably not as big as "eye witnesses" have perceived. I was held up at gunpoint once; I can assure you the gun most certainly did look like a cannon. It was actually quite small... in fact, at first I thought it was a toy.

Our Winters have been pretty mild lately here in Kansas, while up north they've been buggers. Perhaps I'll get to see the Sasquatch migration reroute into Kansas. I've already witnessed the new and improved migratory pattern of the Armadillo up from Texas. I need a BigFoot to balance it out.