Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

Which somehow led us to talking about missing people, and I didn't see how that had anything to do with people being struck by vehicles on the highway.

I know I write assuming people understand what I'm talking about but are you honestly having a problem following my line of thinking? This has been discussed on so many other threads it seems like it would be a no brainer to follow. I'll try to improve if it's me.

What is your source for this speculation/assumption?

Personal experience from working in the ER. I would say 90% of fatal accidents I've seen that involve an automobile have some form of substance abuse involved, be it the person hit or the driver, or both.

So while we humans would have to train to be gymnasts, bigfoot comes by this ninja stuff naturally? I'm not buying it.

Sure, like most primates do, we didn't grow up living in trees or in the outdoors with uneven terrain. If we did, we would probably develop a better sense of kinesthesia because that is really all it amounts too. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself if interested.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jodie

[Guest]

So while we humans would have to train to be gymnasts, bigfoot comes by this ninja stuff naturally? I'm not buying it.

Again with the special pleading...you are aware of these things called instincts, yes? Animals have them (even man, but to a minor degree), and they are honed from birth by the harsh realities of survival in the wild. No recourse to "training" (as you are implying) is necessary.

Really? Thank goodness we have Mulder to educate naive lay people like me about the "realities of fossilization." I guess that means that there really are bigfoots out there - cool!

It isn't what I say, it's what professional paleontologists themselves say about the (lack of) completeness of the fossil record. Meldrum cites this pretty thoroughly.

But by all means, continue to stick you fingers in your ears and hum REALLY loudly when someone brings facts to your notice...it's the only way you can keep trotting out the same tired, rebutted and debunked non-objections over and over and over again.

I removed a derogatory comment from this post. Let's be careful in our choice of comments. Calling someone obtuse is disrespectful.

Splash

Edited December 14, 2010 by Splash7
To remove derogatory comment.

[Guest]

One request, can we tone down the 'ninja' rhetoric please. It was funny once or twice but the more it is used the more demeaning it sounds to me. Surely it is possible to make the skeptical point without deriding the other side.

Thanks

I'm not feeling demeaned, it's just an example of a neurological disconnect between two posters.

[masterbarber]

Nevermind....

Edited December 14, 2010 by masterbarber

[Guest]

The dog reaction thing doesn't make sense to me. I could see it if you were out in the woods in vulnerable territory, but to bow up at a pile a crap on home ground? All I can think is that where wolf became man's domesticated best friend, bigfoot must have made a habit of eating them. There was no need to have a reciprocal relationship with another animal to aid them in hunting. Must be an instinctive reaction on the dog's part. I don't know, just guessing.

[Guest Gambit]

Yes, like I said, unless bigfoot is some sort of super-ninja-ape-like-creature, or night-ninja-wood-ape, we should have had a road kill instance by now. I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you?

RayG

Nah.You're making the common mistake of equating squatch to an animal, (in the bear, wolverine sense) and by doing so going down the wrong path.

This is why people who try and locate/photograph/trick them as if they were just another animal fail..ALL THE TIME.

He doesn't need to be a "ninja-wood-ape". Do YOU need to be a ninja wood ape to avoid being hit by the one car within 30 miles?

Of course not. Think more along the lines of homonid, and intelligent one at that, and then you have your reason

why we don't have road kill. That's not to say one won't get hit by a logging truck while playing around one of these days, just think of how

much difficulty you'd have avoiding a car...not much. It's human arrogance that upholds the belief by some that this is an "animal"

in the common sense of the word. "It couldn't possibly be as smart as ME, I'm a HUMAN for crying out loud!"

The salient point being, that the "we have road kill of the rare and secretive wolverine, therefore we should have roadkill of squatch" argument

falls apart as soon as you stop seeing squatch as just another animal.

It still stuns me, after all this time, and all the reported encounters, that so many still view squatch simply as an ape.

That has to be the most implausible, ridiculous contention I've heard, yet even the TBRC goes employs research methodology as if

this were so.

If it were an ape, simply a North American ecological analog to an Mountain Gorilla, we'd have been filming them regularly years ago.

We'd at least have a single kill...SOMETHING.

Something much more intelligent is all that makes any sense. That, or they simply are not there, which doesn't seem plausible at this point either.

IMHO, it's either one or the other.

[Guest]

The dog reaction thing doesn't make sense to me. I could see it if you were out in the woods in vulnerable territory, but to bow up at a pile a crap on home ground? All I can think is that where wolf became man's domesticated best friend, bigfoot must have made a habit of eating them. There was no need to have a reciprocal relationship with another animal to aid them in hunting. Must be an instinctive reaction on the dog's part. I don't know, just guessing.

It's a WAG on my part, but I strongly suspect it's phermonal.

[Guest]

Gambit, well said. Breath of fresh air. One of the best ways to put it I have seen in quite some time.

Mulder.. agreed. (regarding pheromonal reference.) So much we do not know.. including the complexities regarding body chemistry on both a personal and wholesale level. I refer to this w/ other spp.. and with those there is so much we do not know.. takes time, $$ & patience for the effort of understanding.. and lots of competition for the resources.. legends & what is still perceived by so many as science fiction do not rate terribly high in the lineup for serious needed research...especially on things with alledged sas complexities & capability. lol.

Jodie.. it may be different or individual dogs.. different breeds, etc. I have seen it referred to repetitively.

Some dogs do not have reactions, I have noticed some feel that dogs with significant percentages of wolf genetics have less reactions or nil, on the other hand I know of sled dogs(with wolf genetics) reacting in a terrified manner to vocalizations.. and they were bear aggressive.. same with people who spend their lifetimes with guard dog breeds (notably dobs and gsheps who report experiences watching their normally aggressive dogs whither in the presence of what is thought to be a sasquatch or their audio. Over time some of these dogs seem to have lost their fear however which suggests some other things.

[southernyahoo]

Yes, like I said, unless bigfoot is some sort of super-ninja-ape-like-creature, or night-ninja-wood-ape, we should have had a road kill instance by now. I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you?

RayG

BF wouldn't have to be a ninja to avoid being hit by cars that are careening down the road, but I'm ok with the label of wood ninja, because I think they've got some slick tricks, if they exist.

[Guest RayG]

One request, can we tone down the 'ninja' rhetoric please.

Bigfoot are apparently no ordinary animals*, and like ninjas, they are gifted in the art of agility, stealth, concealment, and camouflage, hence my reference to them as wood-ninjas.

Pssst Ray, i'll tell you a secret, i didn't discover the Internet or the BFRO, BFF etc until 2001, same as those people..

I wasn't commenting on the medium by which the report was communicated, I was commenting on the poor quality of the report itself.

BF is not a moose. Nor is he a raccoon.

Correct, but both large animals (moose) and small animals (raccoons) end up as road kill. What other North American animal does not? This is a serious question. If every other animal, no matter how large, small, agile, clumsy, smart, stupid, rare, or plentiful has been rendered a corpse by vehicular impact...why not bigfoot?

Jodie: I just don't see how fossils and missing humans was relevant to the road kill discussion, regardless of how many threads have talked about fossils or missing humans.

Please understand my reluctance to accept your opinion as a source for substance-related pedestrian deaths. I was hoping you might have provided some actual study results, like the Pedestrian fatalities and alcohol study by the Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Forensic Medicine, Umeå University, in Sweden.

• Autopsied pedestrian fatalities (286 victims) in northern Sweden from 1977 to 1995 were investigated, using autopsy and police reports. Blood alcohol was detected in 19% of the fatalities, with a median concentration of 1.6 g/l.

Keep in mind bigfoot doesn't drive, so he'd only be a pedestrian, and the blood alcohol level of the person behind the wheel is not going to increase the blood alcohol level of the bigfoot they're about to mow down.

* Gambit: If sasquatch is not an ordinary animal, then what is it?

Comments about the relationship between dogs and bigfoot to follow later.

RayG

[Guest Gambit]

* Gambit: If sasquatch is not an ordinary animal, then what is it?

Intelligent homonid, like you and me.

Squatch may not be building F18's, but out there they're the geniuses.

Watch how a Shipibo disappears into the jungles of Peru, and you'll know what I mean.

[BobbyO]

I wasn't commenting on the medium by which the report was communicated, I was commenting on the poor quality of the report itself.

Yes you did Ray, you insinuated that because the Report took so long to Report, it affected the validity of it, with this wording " I was hoping for something a little better than someone having a weird feeling about something they didn't witness themselves, and then reporting it 30 years later. " & then adding the emoticon after it.

[Guest]

RayG, on 14 December 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:

* Gambit: If sasquatch is not an ordinary animal, then what is it?

---------------------------------------------

What Gambit said

Why the difficulty in verification & no body?

tk: the reason this forum is here...

What are the answers?

tk: all around us.. but we ignore them

When are we going to conclude this?

Anytime but .. NOT NECESSARILY sometime soon

How can we?

JMHO We can speed it up by putting time and money on it

and people are.. as ea few years go by its another step closer

Good luck with patience If THEY were just another animal like a moose or a gorilla

in my humble opinion we would have concluded this a very very long time ago.

IS IT SPECIAL ?? Apparently..

How so.. Another very good question

[southernyahoo]

Correct, but both large animals (moose) and small animals (raccoons) end up as road kill. What other North American animal does not? This is a serious question. If every other animal, no matter how large, small, agile, clumsy, smart, stupid, rare, or plentiful has been rendered a corpse by vehicular impact...why not bigfoot?

Ray, I think it's a simple matter that the other animals just aren't smart enough to realize that anything the size of a car carries more mass and kenetic energy than their lessor static bodies can withstand in an impact. How engenious does a hominid have to be to observe and realize this?

[Guest RayG]

Intelligent homonid, like you and me.

Squatch may not be building F18's, but out there they're the geniuses.

Watch how a Shipibo disappears into the jungles of Peru, and you'll know what I mean.

You're making it sound like bigfoot is the Yoda of the animal world.

Yes you did Ray, you insinuated that because the Report took so long to Report, it affected the validity of it, with this wording " I was hoping for something a little better than someone having a weird feeling about something they didn't witness themselves, and then reporting it 30 years later. " & then adding the emoticon after it.

Length of time increases the chance of skewed memories/recollections, whether they are reported in a book 30 years later, or online 30 years later. Especially if they didn't witness anything themselves. I get a weird feeling about reports like that.

southernyahoo: I'm not buying either the gymnastic bigfoot[1], or the slide-rule bigfoot[2]. Both amount to nothing more than special pleading.

RayG

For the sake of future brevity:

[1] gymnastic bigfoot = instincts honed from birth by the harsh realities of survival in the wild, allowing them to develop a better sense of kinesthesia so they may leap out of the way of oncoming traffic

[2] slide-rule bigfoot = smart enough to realize that anything the size of a car carries more mass and kinetic energy than their lessor static bodies can withstand in an impact