Guest Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) is "twaddle" a word? cause, forgive me, but it leaped into my mind while reading your "Promethean hearth..." Humans have lived in what you seem to think is the environment of bigfoots (ie dry land and air, not the depths of the ocean) for 400 years, with firearms, deadly intent, scientific curiosity, and an urge to explore, conquer, tame, map, trap, kill, survey, fence, farm, graze, develop, police, mine, drill, photograph, surveil, log, hike, hunt, collect and settle every possible resource, and for 150 years with cameras, and 100 years with high momentum vehicles, which now drive over 6 billion miles a day our system of roads, which for most of the country can be found at least every mile. A recent total of some 300,000,000 of us (MOL). Several million trail cams. Yet not a fossil, a body or body part, DNA, or convincing image have we obtained. Not even a consistent description or consistent numbers of toes on the casts of the "footprints." There you go exaggerating again. Several million trail cams? I doubt it. And the "400 years" argument is nonsense, IMO. How do you know no BF has been killed by man in the last 400 years? Are you referring to the "white man's" presence in North America? And if they existed then white scientists would have had a specimen in a white museum by now? So a 16th century pilgrim that came across a bigfoot, blasted it with his musket and dragged it back to the village where the elders determined it would be shipped back to jolly ole England to some anthropologists who would classify it for posterity. Right. I think our only hope to have preserved a bigfoot corpse was in the BT Barnum days, a hundred years or so ago. At least an oddity acquired by Barnum might eventually make it to scientists who would classify it. Otherwise, science institutions in North America were not well established until quite recently. But I would divide 400 hundred years ago by at least half to realistically expect bigfoot to be classified in North America. But speaking of hundreds of years ago..the migration from Europe established much fewer than 300,000,000 "aggressive eyes" overlooking the landscape. A paltry white population monitoring millions of acres is comical. If you want to look at humans who could witness whether sasquatch exists, you look to the indigenous peoples. Think of the bloody murder you would be professing if the native peoples had no bigfoot in their legends. Whether you like it or not, acknowledgement of bigfoot in NA legends supports the probability that bigfoot is real. IMO, its absence in NA culture would have been a bigfoot killer. Did I miss something about us colonizing the depth of the sea for that long? oh, I forgot, not only can we not breath down there unaided, but we would be crushed by the pressure, unable to see, and killed by hypothermia without massive technological developments. Not to mention the massive three dimensional space. I guess you forgot that also.... are there 300,000,000 pairs of aggressive human eyes, minds and tools down there? I don't think so. Do you? When you think about it clearly, it's been like a drop in the time bucket that we North Americans have been in a position to classify a native elusive beast such as bigfoot. Keep hanging on to that 1%. Edited December 18, 2011 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 At least the squid people don't bury their dead but simply allow them to drift in the sea. This results in the giant squid washing up on shores from time to time. Too bad "Science" was asleep at the switch for almost 2000 years, and didn't notice this and catalog the species. Remember the first rule of "Science":if an unlettered nobody witnesses something, it isn't really witnessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I don't think it's really fair to blame "science" for anything in this scenario. It doesn't really matter to me the caliber of person who observes a phenomenon. It matters most to me who verifies it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 There you go exaggerating again. Several million trail cams? I doubt it. And the "400 years" argument is nonsense, IMO. How do you know no BF has been killed by man in the last 400 years? Are you referring to the "white man's" presence in North America? And if they existed then white scientists would have had a specimen in a white museum by now? So a 16th century pilgrim that came across a bigfoot, blasted it with his musket and dragged it back to the village where the elders determined it would be shipped back to jolly ole England to some anthropologists who would classify it for posterity. Right. I think our only hope to have preserved a bigfoot corpse was in the BT Barnum days, a hundred years or so ago. At least an oddity acquired by Barnum might eventually make it to scientists who would classify it. Otherwise, science institutions in North America were not well established until quite recently. But I would divide 400 hundred years ago by at least half to realistically expect bigfoot to be classified in North America. But speaking of hundreds of years ago..the migration from Europe established much fewer than 300,000,000 "aggressive eyes" overlooking the landscape. A paltry white population monitoring millions of acres is comical. If you want to look at humans who could witness whether sasquatch exists, you look to the indigenous peoples. Think of the bloody murder you would be professing if the native peoples had no bigfoot in their legends. Whether you like it or not, acknowledgement of bigfoot in NA legends supports the probability that bigfoot is real. IMO, its absence in NA culture would have been a bigfoot killer. When you think about it clearly, it's been like a drop in the time bucket that we North Americans have been in a position to classify a native elusive beast such as bigfoot. Keep hanging on to that 1%. Using this logic I guess Trolls and Fairies are real since the natives of Norway and Iceland have reported seeing them for thousands of years..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 is "twaddle" a word? cause, forgive me, but it leaped into my mind while reading your "Promethean hearth..." Humans have lived in what you seem to think is the environment of bigfoots (ie dry land and air, not the depths of the ocean) for 400 years, with firearms, deadly intent, scientific curiosity, and an urge to explore, conquer, tame, map, trap, kill, survey, fence, farm, graze, develop, police, mine, drill, photograph, surveil, log, hike, hunt, collect and settle every possible resource, and for 150 years with cameras, and 100 years with high momentum vehicles, which now drive over 6 billion miles a day our system of roads, which for most of the country can be found at least every mile. A recent total of some 300,000,000 of us (MOL). Several million trail cams. Yet not a fossil, a body or body part, DNA, or convincing image have we obtained. Not even a consistent description or consistent numbers of toes on the casts of the "footprints." Did I miss something about us colonizing the depth of the sea for that long? oh, I forgot, not only can we not breath down there unaided, but we would be crushed by the pressure, unable to see, and killed by hypothermia without massive technological developments. Not to mention the massive three dimensional space. I guess you forgot that also.... are there 300,000,000 pairs of aggressive human eyes, minds and tools down there? I don't think so. Do you? With a username like "Parnassus," you should know a thing or two about ornate allusions to Greek mythology. But I won't hold your own petard against you. Your droll recapitulation of the contra-BF case is both overstated and contradictory. For nowhere among the intrepid, eagle-eyed explorers blanketing the outback is mentioned the legions of liars, hallucinating head cases, and bumbling mistaken nincompoops that have had the misfortune of reporting -- gasp -- an encounter with BF. Well, at least in your world it's easy to know the difference between the eagle eyed solid citizens and the addled hucksters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 The basic fact is this. There is no evidence of much merit . As stated by others, we can barely even move around in the deep ocean yet we have filmed giant squid. There may only be one wolverine in California, yet it was filmed. Everybody and their grandmother has a digital cam on their phone, yet we get nothing but blurry useless pics. Not one credible looking photograph has been shown to the public , or Bigfooters at large in all this time.... It really looks bad. How many sightings does the BFRO have in their database? Is it so out of the ordinary in a country of 300 million if 5000 made stuff up or were mis identifying known animals? I would actually think it would be more around a million or so honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 The basic fact is this. There is no evidence of much merit . As stated by others, we can barely even move around in the deep ocean yet we have filmed giant squid. There may only be one wolverine in California, yet it was filmed. Everybody and their grandmother has a digital cam on their phone, yet we get nothing but blurry useless pics. Not one credible looking photograph has been shown to the public , or Bigfooters at large in all this time.... It really looks bad. How many sightings does the BFRO have in their database? Is it so out of the ordinary in a country of 300 million if 5000 made stuff up or were mis identifying known animals? I would actually think it would be more around a million or so honestly. Let me see if I follow you: 'no evidence exists, but that which does exist isn't good enough'. Does that about sum it up? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I'm not a total skeptic, I find the whole thing compelling,. However the longer we go with no hard evidence the harder it becomes to give it much creedence. That being said, I see very little "evidence" at all. I see stories and some footprints. But no pictures or video. (the PGF is faker than fake , it's obviously fake... once the film was blown up I could spot all the probs with it pretty quickly). Everyone says they are elusive, yet there are tons of sightings by people. Yet no photographs of a real Bigfoot. Tons of fairly silly hoaxes and such, but no good clear pictures (like those of a snow leopard,wolverine or other highly elusive creatures out there we have proof of). Doesn't it trouble you ? Let me see if I follow you: 'no evidence exists, but that which does exist isn't good enough'. Does that about sum it up? Nice way to sidestep the actual nature of my post . SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!! it's that simple, show it to me. If there's some evidence I would love nothing more than to see it!!!! All I've seen are blobsquatches and hoaxes..... Hardly a good argument for a creature 8 feet tall and 500 lbs that seems to be spotted every other day by somebody yet they can't seem to get a half decent closeup picture of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I'm not a total skeptic, I find the whole thing compelling,. However the longer we go with no hard evidence the harder it becomes to give it much creedence. That being said, I see very little "evidence" at all. I see stories and some footprints. But no pictures or video. (the PGF is faker than fake , it's obviously fake... once the film was blown up I could spot all the probs with it pretty quickly). Everyone says they are elusive, yet there are tons of sightings by people. Yet no photographs of a real Bigfoot. Tons of fairly silly hoaxes and such, but no good clear pictures (like those of a snow leopard,wolverine or other highly elusive creatures out there we have proof of). Doesn't it trouble you ? Nice way to sidestep the actual nature of my post . SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!! it's that simple, show it to me. If there's some evidence I would love nothing more than to see it!!!! All I've seen are blobsquatches and hoaxes..... Hardly a good argument for a creature 8 feet tall and 500 lbs that seems to be spotted every other day by somebody yet they can't seem to get a half decent closeup picture of it? Ah. I congratulate you on singlehandedly debunking the PGF. I'll let everyone else know, we'll be turning out the lights on this forum in the next week or two. Thank you and drive around. I will say this: without PGF, this field is dead. All the way, graveyard dead. It boils down to this: yes there are many reasons for skepticism. But there is enough that can't simply be dismissed to continue the inquiry. And the fact that we can't imagine the reasons why the answer is so elusive means nothing except to our own will to continue searching. If you cannot bear the burden of suspending your cognitive dissonance for the long haul, you're really better off letting it go, because if there's one thing I'm sure of it's that this field holds no easy answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 The basic fact is this. There is no evidence of much merit . As stated by others, we can barely even move around in the deep ocean yet we have filmed giant squid. There may only be one wolverine in California, yet it was filmed. Everybody and their grandmother has a digital cam on their phone, yet we get nothing but blurry useless pics. Not one credible looking photograph has been shown to the public , or Bigfooters at large in all this time.... It really looks bad. How many sightings does the BFRO have in their database? Is it so out of the ordinary in a country of 300 million if 5000 made stuff up or were mis identifying known animals? I would actually think it would be more around a million or so honestly. According to some people who have seen it, the Erickson footage is very good. For reasons that have been covered a billion times, it's release is on hold. Since it does indeed exist, does it not count because it hasn't been seen by the public or Bigfooters at large? Are you at least willing to give someone like John Bindernagel the benefit of the doubt when he claims the footage does exist? It just seems a bit premature to declare Bigfoot as never before filmed and therefore nonexistent. http://www.albertasasquatchsightingreports.com/Read_this.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I am now 99% sure Sas does not exist. The one 1% is because of the folks here and the individuals I have personally spoke with. And I've even "seen tracks" in snow. The probability is just so nil. If I could, I'd bring in a body. Shucks, there's even a dude (lame-O dude) offering 2 mil for it. I just dont "believe" anymore. And I even "believe" some who have emailed me on here (what they saw and told me) I just think they've been mistaken. Kinda over-it-all. 'Bout over for me anymore. Your best bet is to just walk away and never think of this "nonsense and misidentification" again... Why waste any more time and energy when you just don't believe anything, anyone, or any evidence... Just walk away and put your time into something you do believe in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Your best bet is to just walk away and never think of this "nonsense and misidentification" again... Why waste any more time and energy when you just don't believe anything, anyone, or any evidence... Just walk away and put your time into something you do believe in.... Back at ya. Your best bet is to just walk away and never think of this "nonsense and misidentification" again... Why waste any more time and energy on something that is not real, Just walk away and put your time into something you do believe in. " “The only thing to do with advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself.†Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Back at ya. Your best bet is to just walk away and never think of this "nonsense and misidentification" again... Why waste any more time and energy on something that is not real, Just walk away and put your time into something you do believe in. " “The only thing to do with advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself.†Tim Funny Tim i don't remember addressing this to you... Then again you think you are all that and at center stage... So dance little monkey dance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Well then i guess the concept of a forum works different when you post, i was not aware of that. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Your best bet is to just walk away and never think of this "nonsense and misidentification" again... Why waste any more time and energy when you just don't believe anything, anyone, or any evidence... Just walk away and put your time into something you do believe in.... You quoted a post but seemed to completely ignore what it said. What's the word kids are using nowadays, redonkulous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts