Jump to content
Guest Admin

Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

Recommended Posts

Cotter

I mentioned this in another thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21963508

Scientists thought the rhino was extinct on Borneo for over 20 years. Now they are rethinking this. Is this a rhino hoaxer laying trackways in Borneo? Or perhaps a thought to be extinct (on Borneo) rhino that has evaded detection?

Borneo has a population density greater than 20 States in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What I can't believe is that there are actually folks who still think the figure in the PGF is a dude in a suit. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

As tempting as it is to draw that comparison Cotter..... What you'll likely draw is the whole, "But we had a speciment of this animal before, so science knew what made that print, etc." response/treatment. Really too, they'd be correct. Plus, you don't need to go there to make the excellent case that the evidence makes, that it has always made, and which stands unrebutted to this day. I'd say: Don't lob any cans of corn low and inside the strike zone, in other words. Throw the fastball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

True, but an oft heard sentiment of a skeptic is that "if they were out there, they would have been found already".

But I agree with your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

The deal with the rhinos in Borneo is that they were known to exist there all along. There were specimens, living examples, and the idea of extinction comes with the inability to detect any more individuals. There may have been several living there in the years following the idea of extinction, yet so few as to avoid detection.

Borneo is a pretty wild place. It's without question a very third world country. I've been there once, for about a week and a half, and it was quite the eye opening experience. Stayed at a nature outpost in the middle of nowhere. Helicoptered up, and hiked down Mt. Kinabalu, and excruciating time. The wilderness there is intense. The vegetation grows at a massive rate. It has extremely dense jungles that are difficult to navigate. I find it hard to compare the North American forests with the jungles of Borneo. Borneo, particularly the outlying forests and areas removed from the primary city(ies) are extremely primitive, with almost no infrastructure whatsoever.

I hope the rhino is found to be living in Borneo still. It's always a bummer when we extinct species like we have. I would not be that surprised if they were found in isolated areas. Food is everywhere, cover is everywhere. In Borneo, people are not everywhere.

What I can't believe is that there are actually folks who still think the figure in the PGF is a dude in a suit. :laugh:

And there are those who can't believe that there are actually folks who believe that Patty is a real, living, bigfoot, the likes of which have never been documented to really exist anywhere in the world, at any time. Patty is exactly the size, and shape, and displaying behavior, exactly like a dude in a suit. There is nothing at all that would establish Patty as somehow impossible for it to be a person in a suit. Not beyond human size, nor proportion, nor behavior. And considering that nobody has produced a single specimen in the multi-hundred years of modern human inhabitation, not a single body, not a single hair, not a single cell, not a bit of confirmed DNA to support that bigfoot even exists...

You have a human sized and shaped subject in a 46 year old film. You have no other scientifically documented evidence of one existing before or after that film. How much more time, how many more decades have to go by without tangible evidence of bigfoot before it stops being so amazing that people would consider the Patterson creature a well orchestrated bit of fiction?

True, but an oft heard sentiment of a skeptic is that "if they were out there, they would have been found already".

In the case of the rhinos, they had been found already. There never was any doubt that they existed. But their numbers dwindled to the point where none had been seen for 20 years, so it was assumed that they had all died out. But all necessary forms of evidence had already been documented to establish that they existed prior to the time they stopped being seen.

In the case of sasquatch, there isn't anything other than footprints and eye witness accounts to support that they ever have existed. Not one single shred of physical or better said, organic samples which would suggest they exist. So far, any tissue, hair, saliva, poop, whatever, comes back as dog, cat, bear, raccoon, human, synthetic, you name it. Nothing which would support a new primate. And what's worse is that these kinds of samples often come from confirmed eye witness accounts. Someone sees a sasquatch climb a fence, or lick a window, or eat an apple, and the results come back as dog? Or cow? So how is it that there is such a conflict between a sample supposedly confirmed to have come from a sasquatch, and what that sample actually is?

A real creature should not be so difficult to define or document. I'll bet that if they find what they suspect to be rhino poop in a rhino track, it won't come back as hyena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Hi Tontar - It's been a while.

I will say that we may have already documented the existence of Bigfoot. It may just be called something else at this time. I don't think that ANYONE can disprove that what people call BF is not already in the fossil record somewhere.

It could be arguable that BF existed in America prior to the Europeans coming here and telling the Natives they did not. But if I recall, there were plenty of Europeans that had seen one of these 'wild men' when they first started settling.

Perhaps BF's numbers are as small as the Rhino's? We don't know. Obviously there are not hundreds of thousands of them running around (unless they CAN interdimensionally jump!).

Additionally, on Borneo, where these were known to exist at one point, in an area more densely populated than 20 states of the United States (and all of Canada), they STILL were thought to be extinct for 20 years. I would be willing to bet that Borneans spend magnitudes more time in the bush than to the weekend warriors of America as well.

My point of all this was to show how a large mammal of sub-primate intelligence can remain undetected for decades.

edited for spelling

Edited by Cotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Right. Your last sentence is just the relevant point.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Additionally, on Borneo, where these were known to exist at one point, in an area more densely populated than 20 states of the United States (and all of Canada), they STILL were thought to be extinct for 20 years. I would be willing to bet that Borneans spend magnitudes more time in the bush than to the weekend warriors of America as well.

19 million people in Borneo, clustered in extremely dense pockets along the coast in the cities. Not exactly the same as that same number dispersed throughout the wilderness. Aside from bigfoot, going to places like Borneo is such a cool experience. One place we stayed was a hotel, decent place, but outside the window we could see the city, with high rises, cars, busses, and bustling city life. Yet crammed in to every nook and corner would be shanties like I'd never seen before, made out of any imaginable kind of material scavenged from who knows where. Virtual cities made from tightly packed shanties spread well out into the bay, some floating, some supported by pilings, it was like the worst imaginable ghetto with tiny pathways winding between the incredibly tightly packed shanties.

One village we visited cranked up their generator so they could have electrical power to the "town hall" where they threw a party/feast. The village was hacked out of the forest, a small clearing in the otherwise dense jungle. Kids, chickens, pigs, and dogs (another source of meat), wandered freely throughout the village, but the people there did not go that deep into the jungle. They stuck pretty close to the cleared areas. There weren't a lot of shoes, although everyone seemed to have logo printed t-shirts! They did things out of necessity, and hiking and exploring didn't seem to be high o their list of priorities. It was cool for us to do it, but they didn't seem to "get it".

Personally, I could see some sort of new primate existing there, undiscovered, versus here. I really do think that we traverse our wild areas far more than the people of Borneo do. Not just being disagreeable, I think that's really the case. I know guys here that go out to camp, or to hunt, or to climb rock cliffs, for sport, for fun, for something to do. I kind of didn't get the idea that the Borneo people are of the same mindset. In general.

My point of all this was to show how a large mammal of sub-primate intelligence can remain undetected for decades.

Good comparison, and I appreciate the idea. It's just hard for me to reconcile that with the idea that the biggest primate on earth, bigger than gorillas, can really go undetected all these years, and still be around and impossible to scientifically detect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

^^^^^^^

borneo is being cut down as we speak

and being turned into a giant palm oil plantation as well as other crops

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Borneo

so while it may felt wilder to you it is dwarfed by what hides in the northern tiaga foests of the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

The failure of the bigfoot skeptics (they ain't skeptical if they swallow this) to duplicate Patty, or show how it was done, in over 45 years is a flat indictment of their position. It indeed lowers that position to the level of True Belief. Might as well wait in a field for the Great Pumpkin.

Why do you demand that skeptics duplicate the suit, when you are unable to duplicate the beast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ Exactly. It is equally as damning the failure of proponents to produce an actual Bigfoot in 45 years. The unfortunate skeptics are replicating one hoax. But BF proponents, we're just asking you for one Bigfoot out of 1,000's or tens of 1,000s in North America. 45 years later, not a single one, or piece of one is produced. But hey, it's no where near as ridiculous as the skeptics failure to create a Patty suit. That argument lacks proper perspective.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Why do you demand that skeptics duplicate the suit, when you are unable to duplicate the beast?

Who is "you"? Me? I'm simply listening to people with scientific chops, and to thousands of folks who are "duplicating?????" the beast over and over and over and over. Nope. Apples and Ganymede. As the mountain of evidence that Patty is real grows, skeptics cling to something that has yielded zero in 46 years. Everything with the evidence we have for sasquatch is proven...except sasquatch. So even worse than The Church of Pattyfake is the ignorance of the mainstream, to whom we delegate the task of proof. You guys need to get on board with how science works. (Hint: BY WORKING.)

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^^ Except none of the evidence for Sasquatch is proven. It cannot be until Sasquatch is proven. Until that time everything with the evidence you mention remains conditional upon Sasquatch actually being proven. Until that point, all you have is a bunch of evidence that you claim comes from a Sasquatch or that you believe supports the claim of Sasquatchs' existence. But it cannot be stated as proven, as you state above , until Sasquatch is actually proven--which to date it is not,which you also point out above. So if you accept one of those facts, you have to accept the other. So please stop stating as fact that Sasquatch evidence is proven. It's not. The nuance does not escape you, yet you continually post statements as fact that are clearly not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

mm hmmm, um yeah, right, OK, yupper, etc., no proof, got that, yada. And last time I checked we resolve that issue by following evidence. Unless your "Jeff Meldrum Is Wrong" treatise is immediately following.

(And no I didn't put that bolding on, and no I can't take it off. No clue why, and yes I tried that. Seems a particular artifact of this laptop's interaction with this specific site. Another thing I can't do: hit Enter for paragraphs. Just here. Nowhere else. Just this computer, no other. This was two posts to get two paragraphs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ No, and stop avoiding the question. You made a claim that is not true. I am simply asking you to clarify that by confirming that you understand that the evidence cannot be claimed as proven to come from a Sasquatch until a Sasquatch is actually proven to exist. Pretty simple. I'm sure you understand that without the need to drag your favorite scientist into this. Follow evidence all you want, but until the claim is proven out, stop making up facts please.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...