Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest DWA]

Go to the home page of ivorybill.org.

 

Look at the photo.

 

PILEATED. 

 

None so blind.

 

Contrast this with thousands of people under no influence of anything but everyday life, who suddenly saw an eight-foot ape.

 

Them over ornithologists who want something to be real so bad that they're mistaking a common and similar species for an extinct one.

 

(While drunk.)

 

(And anyone who thinks a bear can be mistaken for an upright ape.)

 

Seven sightings and two sounds?  All by drunk and despairing ornithologists, in the area that has the nation's highest concentrations of swamp gas as measured by the EPA?

 

Mothman.  So-whatsville.

 

(edited to cleave to DWA's new idols:  Drew and Jerrymander)

Edited June 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's already established that the woodpecker was there and possibly still is, but with Bigfoot, we're talking about a large ape that is considered mythological (fairy tale status). The evidence for Bigfoot just isn't convincing enough from a scientific point of view. In contrast to what many Bigfooters believe, there's no scientific bias against the possible existence of Bigfoot. The evidence just isn't solid enough for most scientists to justify investigation.

Edited June 12, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Drew]

A once-existing bird, living in remotest of swamp habitats possibly being extant is far, far different, than a never-before-classified 600 lb, 7' tall giant hairy apeman, living in the semi-rural areas of the ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

Not when a similar species exists, and scientists are being funded to take vacations looking for it, and want to keep taking those vacations.

 

Hardly any ivorybill habitat still exists.

 

Plenty good sasquatch habitat exists, probably within a mile to five miles of anyone reading this.

 

Add onto that that no one who sees one gets anyone to believe him.  Shoot, they could be holing up in your kids' treehouse and science wouldn't know.

It's already established that the woodpecker was there and possibly still is, but with Bigfoot, we're talking about a large ape that is considered mythological (fairy tale status). The evidence for Bigfoot just isn't convincing enough from a scientific point of view. In contrast to what many Bigfooters believe, there's no scientific bias against the possible existence of Bigfoot. The evidence just isn't solid enough for most scientists to justify investigation.

Considered mythological by whom?  Scientists united in their refusal to consider the evidence or rebut the proponents?

 

No scientist has ever offered a support of the viewpoint in that last sentence that passes the most basic sniff test.

 

Many species have been confirmed (the saola, for example), following up far less evidence than exists for sasquatch.

 

The only evidence we have that ivorybills still exist are the misperceptions of overeager ornithologists.  It isn't happening.  That baby's gonzo.

[Cotter]

@ OS - Yeah, well, so were 'hobbits' until a couple years ago.

 

Additionally, as I understand most here require, and as Sask has indicated in the past.  There is no evidence, and no scientific inquiry, until proof is provided.

 

The ol' catch 22.

 

Also, I'll repeat myself.  We may already have proof of their existence in the current fossil record, we just don't know it yet.

A once-existing bird, living in remotest of swamp habitats possibly being extant is far, far different, than a never-before-classified 600 lb, 7' tall giant hairy apeman, living in the semi-rural areas of the ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT.

That would sure help explain the thousands of reported sightings wouldn't it?

[Guest DWA]

A once-existing bird, living in remotest of swamp habitats possibly being extant is far, far different, than a never-before-classified 600 lb, 7' tall giant hairy apeman, living in the semi-rural areas of the ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT.

That would sure help explain the thousands of reported sightings wouldn't it?

No, Cotter.  Drew knows that all those people are drunk/drugged/deluded/incompetent.  He just KNOWS it, it HAS to be.  HAS to.

 

Because he KNOWS it.

 

Them over him, says I.  Every time.

[dmaker]

Umm Drew, just want to point out you couldn't even get a part of a Sasquatch into one of them t-ni-nee little drawers. Man, you're scaring me.

Someone has part of a Sasquatch?

[Guest DWA]

In a museum drawer somewhere?

 

Um, actually, I'd bet a small amount of money on it.  'Course we have to confirm it first, don't we.

[Guest]

Plenty good sasquatch habitat exists, probably within a mile to five miles of anyone reading this.

 

That's the problem.

 

Many species have been confirmed (the saola, for example), following up far less evidence than exists for sasquatch.

 

<Spit-take!>  I think just a couple of days ago I provided for you some detailed information about the discovery and description of saola.  You have no excuse for being ignorant of this, so I can only conclude you're being intentionally obtuse.

[dmaker]

G.Blacki fossils were found in Asia, there is nothing to indicate it was ever in North America.

[Guest DWA]

 

Plenty good sasquatch habitat exists, probably within a mile to five miles of anyone reading this.

 

That's the problem.

 

Many species have been confirmed (the saola, for example), following up far less evidence than exists for sasquatch.

 

<Spit-take!>  I think just a couple of days ago I provided for you some detailed information about the discovery and description of saola.  You have no excuse for being ignorant of this, so I can only conclude you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

And you said nothing to contradict what I posted.  (Getting emotional indicates that, well, maybe I got something there.)

 

Or are you being intentionally obtuse?  Or doing that ol' confusion-of-evidence-and-proof thing again?

 

I'm right.   I am not arguing this with you.  What does the phrase "more evidence" mean to you?  If it means what it should...I am right.  'spit take' indeed.  "Wait a minute!  Thousands of sightings in that 'problematical' habitat are not evidence!  A movie of Bob Hieronymous [nice for laughs!] isn't evidence!  Thousands of trackways aren't evidence!"  Oh yes they are.

 

Care to do an analysis of relative volume of compelling evidence?  We've known saola since 1992....and there's still more for sasquatch.  For one thing....more scientists, by far, have seen the latter in the wild.  What, you are gonna doubt scientists now?

 

Oh.  And how could what I said about sasquatch habitat be the problem?  Once again you don't know where the problem is.

 

This is why thousands of people - count on it, a fragment, and a small one at that, of actual encounters - are seeing them.

 

"No it's not [spit take]!"

 

Oh?

 

Why?

 

[crickets...]

 

(edited to allow for double spit-take)

(edited again to allow for triple spit-take)

Edited June 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

G.Blacki fossils were found in Asia, there is nothing to indicate it was ever in North America.

 Yes, but that only means that fossil remains of that species have been found in Asia - i.e. the fossil record in itself is not an exhaustive catalogue of a species distribution. Remember, Asia and North America have been contiguous for much of 'recent' geological time, and there is unambiguous evidence for 'Asian' species occurring in NA...

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Red-Panda-Discovered-in-North-America-36383.shtml

[Guest Cervelo]

DWA,

Thousands of trackways??

Analysis of relative volume of evidence??

Can I find this stuff in the same place you pulled "rules of argument" from....well on second thought I'd rather not

Edited June 12, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest DWA]

Read. What I did. If that's beyond you...pay me and I'll find it for you. ;-)

[norseman]

it is what it is...... pounding on a keyboard is not going to change a thing.

if your a proponent? you know what needs to be done.