Crowlogic

Active Proponents Do You Really Think Bigfoot Is Practically Everywhere?

107 posts in this topic

Close enough.

 

The thing we have to keep in mind is that new species of proto-humans and other primates are regularly identified from new fossil finds, or from the reclassification of old.

 

And several have only been identified within the last couple of decades.

 

There are also species already identified in the fossil record that could well be bigfoot.  Some, like Heidelbergensis, that buried their dead.

 

If we are looking at an extant species that buries it dead and for which candidates are represented in the fossil record, the "Where are the bones?" argument carries less weight.

Edited by JDL
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDL

They might be the closes to bigfoot but they are not them who we are seeking as far as fossils  go. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis

 

They were not that tall, but they do resemble some what to what I have seen except for the eyes. The eyes were solid black and they were absolutely freaky and there is no way to explain how they pierce you. But is it possible that they derived from them well it could be but we have no idea  and they were wonderers and they also were adjusted to cold weather. But anything is possible in this game. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mountain Gorillas have a population of like 800.

I find it very hard to believe that with 12000 of them out in north American forests that we cannot produce a body.......scat, something that tells us this creature exists.

Fair enough, but something else to be considered is that mountain gorillas only live in a tiny geographical range while bigfoot sightings are reported from all across North America.

And with a population density that low? Would make them even harder to detect yes?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDL

They might be the closes to bigfoot but they are not them who we are seeking as far as fossils  go. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis

 

They were not that tall, but they do resemble some what to what I have seen except for the eyes. The eyes were solid black and they were absolutely freaky and there is no way to explain how they pierce you. But is it possible that they derived from them well it could be but we have no idea  and they were wonderers and they also were adjusted to cold weather. But anything is possible in this game. 

 

ShadowBorn, the photo in the link you provided is just someone's concept of how Heidelbergensis might have looked.  It is probably highly anthropomorphized compared to their actual appearance.  The bones may give some indicator of how thick the skin may have been, but not whether or not it was covered in hair or what color the eyes were. 

 

I spent 45 seconds one day locked eye to eye with an adult male at close range.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so few Heidelbergensis fossils to date all we can really say is "could be".

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question is silly.  I am pretty sure that none of the houses in my town harbor a bigfoot, and that there probably isn't one in my bathroom or closet right now.

 

Please address the evidence, and stop asking 'slam-dunk' silly questions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask the relevant question of the skeptics, one that science requires them to answer and which they have not yet begun addressing:

 

How do you support the loony thesis that all of this adds up to a false positive?  Please beware the answer that shows you do not understand what the phrase 'all of this' means.  Hint:  it means what it means everywhere else in science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question is silly.  I am pretty sure that none of the houses in my town harbor a bigfoot, and that there probably isn't one in my bathroom or closet right now.

 

Please address the evidence, and stop asking 'slam-dunk' silly questions.

What question that " Active Proponents Do You Really Think Bigfoot Is Practically Everywhere? " this question is silly? Yes, I would say so in a way that how can they be every where. If they were every where we would be seeing a lot more of them and have the ability to predict their movement. But as it stands now in 2016 we still do not have the ability to predict where they will be at a certain time of year, where we can be ready to gain access to obtain a body. So yes you are correct that this a silly question to ask, but yet it was asked.  To every ones ability they have tried their best to answer this, yet we have learned other things about us as humans. This is the closes that we will get to them by studying our past and how we lived back then.

 

But as far as them being in our back yards it is conceivable that they might be just like bears. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that an animal that

 

1) has the dietary requirements of black bears, and

2) is either more intelligent than the black bear, or as intelligent; as big as or bigger and at least as nasty in a fight; and has hands, and

3) isn't even being hunted because no one thinks it's real, and

4) (the reports show) no one can deal adequately with seeing one to "just shoot it" because as far as they're concerned they're seeing a unicorn/alien/you name what "isn't real" never mind not even being sure whether their weapon can handle it because no shared experience to work from, and did I say big and nasty?

 

would have at the very least the black bear's historic range (which is: pretty much all of North America where trees grow).

 

When the society is convinced something isn't real, one gets...precisely what one sees if one hint hint reads up.

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see bears all the time, wolf, panthers, and many other types of animals including some cryptids that are much rarer than a Squatch.

I do not see Bigfoot all the time, however, or even ever, perhaps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will, er, ah, have to tell me about those 'cryptids.' Wolf?  All the time?  Where are you located? Panthers?  All the time? Really?

 

That notwithstanding:  "I've never seen one" doesn't amount to proof of anything.  I can remember in my lifetime one sighting of the brown thrasher, a fairly common bird from what I hear (couldn't tell it from me!) and pretty durn conspicuous.  I've seen four California Condors, in less than two weeks in condor country since they were reintroduced, and that in only two days of those two weeks.  And other than being generally outside and generally looking around for stuff, I wasn't looking.

 

Doesn't matter what you've seen.  Matters what is.  Remember:  most people who have seen something that "doesn't exist" will make **** sure no one in their circle ever finds out.  Reported sightings, simple psychology makes clear, are only the tip of the iceberg.

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted some of my cryptid sightings to other threads.

Guess I shouldn't have tossed wolf in as I've seen a handful of times but seen coy-wolf and coy-dog a lot more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites