Leaderboard

Alex, how is it the same combustion engine? Is your car running on unleaded gas blended with ethanol? Is it computer controlled with variable valve timing and multiple valves per cylinder? Doesn't it have more power, produce less harmful emissions and get better fuel mileage than anything you drove years ago? Clueless would be someone who doesn't understand that there is only so much potential energy in a gallon of fuel! Cars are more complicated, contain more mandated safety features, more emissions controls, more advanced engineering and more creature comforts than ever before which raises weight. Cars today are often heavier than they used to be but are faster, safer and more fuel efficient while running on a blended fuel that contains less potential energy than before. The Model T of 1914 weighed about 1200lbs, had a 20hp engine, got around 15mpg, and could go about 40mph. The 2014 Fiesta weighs 2600lbs, has a 120hp engine, gets 39mpg and can do 100+mph all while being safer, cleaner, infinitely more comfortable and more fun to drive. We could talk about hybrid vehicles, all electric and/or solar powered vehicles or even hydrogen fuel cell prototypes but it sounds like you have never seen mention of these dark age technologies. My advice - remove your head from wherever it is and open your eyes. Discussing technology or statistics isn't like discussing the latest paranormal bigfoot claim where spouting nonsense is met with "that sounds possible" or "I've seen the same thing mentioned in several anonymous accounts from the early 1970's which were recently investigated and sound true to me" or even my favorite "I often encounter the same and much more but to spare you from the darkness I must say no more". Statistics are real world math applications that work best when they are based on solid (not anonymous and/or anecdotal) sources.

Llawgoch - Bigfoot DOES exist so all this effort your making is for nothing, a total waste of your time. There are better things to do with your life than frittering it away arguing the wrong side of a lost cause. MIB

No. I am replying to the statement "although the liklihood of everyone claiming a sighting is either mistaken, hallucinating, or outright lying for attention is very low as well." by pointing out that there are explanations that mean that possibility is NOT very low. therefore the conclusion "Bigfoot probably exists" is not warranted. But neither is the conclusion "Bigfoot does not exist", when based on these grounds alone.

You might be surprised. You'd hafta tread the Tar Pit to see my true thoughts, my friend. Another 23 postings, and you're eligible, should you wish to join the Premium Access section.

@Stan Dude if you don't think the petroleum industry (I work with their industry btw and I know how they work) is not buying up and shelving all efficiency technologies and keeping you in the dark ages, you're clueless. Ask yourself how the computer can make leaps and bounds in technological advances and we're still dealing with the same gas combustion engine after all these year. LOL I just shake my head. Go out and vote for change buddy. lmao

I cant link to the paper itself, but this would be good for anyone doing non-invasive genetic sampling: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69%5B1419:NGSTFW%5D2.0.CO%3B2

No, that's not the point. That is a circular argument. You have tried to argue statistically in favour of the existence of Bigfoot. I have simply shown an alternative which does not require the existence of Bigfoot., I don't have to prove that non-existence in order to do that. Both exist as competing alternatives, therefore you cannot simply say "it's unlikely all are false" as I have shown you why it is not as unlikely as it might initially appear. This does not mean Bigfoot doesn't exist. it just means that you can't argue that it probably exists simply because of the number of reported sightings.

They decided to go into this area 15 years ago. They found lots of chimps. They knew they were there, however: In 2004 they started surveying the area. In 2014 you get the article talking about the results. http://dare.uva.nl/document/191726 So basically, when they decided to go count them, they were able to count them. They knew they were there, but had no ability to go count them and assess the population and threats.

Clearly you're not following the thread then. How many times does one have to clarify a point to get people to acknowledge something? I'm thinking that it's been repeated so many times that it's become dogma. There is a difference between being prone and being capable. All humans are capable. Hallucination is not a disease, it is only one symptom of what could be many things. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003258.htm Notice it says: "In some cases, hallucinations may be normal. For example, hearing the voice of, or briefly seeing, a loved one who has recently died can be a part of the grieving process". So how does one see or hear a dead person outside of the paranormal? Maybe because of the strong desire to want to see or hear them? I don't know, but that's only one circumstance being specified and it's clearly not an abnormal condition.

It should be also noted that this and almost every other primate discovery was made by fully funded researchers and scientists who spent long periods of time in these areas with top notch equipment. In Sasquatchery we have a small select group of people who take the subject as serious, and only have a very limited { self funded } amount of money and time to put into research efforts. For most Bigfootery is a hobby and not a serious pursuit, they would much rather have a dirt bike, go on five star vacation or have a awesome cellphone and plan every time a new phone comes out. It is no mystery as to why we have not found Bigfoot yet.

Yet again, this book. It is very well documented http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Giants-Who-Ruled-America-ebook/dp/B00HDGKYS2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397312622&sr=8-1&keywords=giants+america I fail to see what this has to do with von Daniken. I do not ascribe to any connection between Bigfoot and UFO's or Ancient Aliens. You may feel free to associate the topics, but I have never seen anything that would compel me to do so. In my opinion, the use of the word "giant" to describe remains is problematic because it is both non-specific and has taken on a sensationalist connotation. Actual size should be used instead. Logic: 1. Three mummified Si-Teh-Cah skeletons from a Cave near Walker Lake, Nevada were on display in Virginia City, Nevada for decades. 2. I personally viewed them multiple times. 3. Other mummified skeletons of the same people were found in Lovelock Cave, Nevada. 4. It is highly unlikely that this tall race of Native Americans was confined to a few dozen individuals living in two caves in Nevada. 5. One would expect to find such remains in other areas of America. 6. Large remains of similar description have been reported to be found throughout America. 7. The Smithsonian has been connected to several of these finds. 8. Thomas Powell, the head of the Smithsonian's Bureau of Ethnology is on record setting a policy "On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data". This is the actual title he gave it and is in direct contradiction to the stated objective of the Smithsonian to broaden the diffusion of knowledge among men. 9. Thomas Powell was concerned that Native American anthropological finds would be used "unwisely", in his view, to connect Native American culture to "...so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world". Powell's words again. 10. Powell was specifically concerned about anything that might link Native Americans to popular theological origins, which might engender positive public perception. Evidence of "giants in the earth" in America, qualified, and worse, the commonly accepted theological origin of such giants was also problematic to him. 11. Sensational title aside, the book referenced above documents the collection of such remains by the Smithsonian. 12. There is no accounting regarding the large remains that the Smithsonian collected, and the Powell Doctrine specifies that the use of such remains should be "limited". 13. It is reasonable to conclude that use of any such remains in the possession of the Smithsonian has indeed been "limited". They probably have not actually been destroyed, but they are probably deeply buried within the Smithsonian. 14. It is possible that the large remains collected include both Bigfoot and members of the race of exceptionally tall humans. Where is my logic flawed here?

Odd the Men in Black government goons allow such podcasts to flourish.

I didn't say that they hadn't published it before. In fact that was discussed on the show itself. It was simply the first I had heard about it, and you have to admit, that more people probably learned of it from the show, than from the publications. And read the referenced book regarding the materials that Smithsonian has acquired in the past, that have simply not been heard about again. This isn't conspiracy theory. The Powell Doctrine is fact.