Guest Urkelbot Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 I don't see how all these people are seeing and experiencing bigfoot and yet no good evidence. If everyone's experiences are to be believed bigfoot hangs out in peoples backyards and yet at the same time won't go near trail cams. I have no idea who is lying, a fool, hallucinating, or telling the truth, and no one else does either. I could believe bigfoot avoids any sign of humans at all costs trails, roads, houses, trail cams, etc even the signs or tracks from months or years ago. I believe it is possible that there are a few left in some corner somewhere barely hanging on. But bigfoot could not be thriving as the number of accounts indicate and yet leave no conclusive evidence.
Guest DWA Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 ^^^A whole bunch of assumptions there, and still there's all that evidence, unaddressed. A biologically-correct hallucination (and I mean utterly, right down to biomechanics, primate behavioral and physical traits unknown to most laymen, and plausible candidates in the fossil record) being constructed by thousands of non-biologists is, to me, so much a stretch as to be an utter nonstarter. Denial as the simple explanation for no proof yet? Slam dunk. When one engages the evidence, the demurrers can be easily brushed aside.
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 I don't see how all these people are seeing and experiencing bigfoot and yet no good evidence. If everyone's experiences are to be believed bigfoot hangs out in peoples backyards and yet at the same time won't go near trail cams. I have no idea who is lying, a fool, hallucinating, or telling the truth, and no one else does either. I could believe bigfoot avoids any sign of humans at all costs trails, roads, houses, trail cams, etc even the signs or tracks from months or years ago. I believe it is possible that there are a few left in some corner somewhere barely hanging on. But bigfoot could not be thriving as the number of accounts indicate and yet leave no conclusive evidence. I agree 100%
norseman Posted July 20, 2013 Admin Posted July 20, 2013 Oh my......the skeptics are starting to cannibalize.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 When one engages the evidence there is still no monkey. Slam Dunk Done. Got monkey?
Guest DWA Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 Well, I admire the stamina if...if, well, nothing else. Of course we got monkey. WHY THE HECK ELSE ARE YOU HERE!?!??!?
Guest Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Where's the monkey? If we got it, why haven't we heard about it? Edited July 20, 2013 by leisureclass
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 ^^^A whole bunch of assumptions there, and still there's all that evidence, unaddressed. A biologically-correct hallucination (and I mean utterly, right down to biomechanics, primate behavioral and physical traits unknown to most laymen, and plausible candidates in the fossil record) being constructed by thousands of non-biologists is, to me, so much a stretch as to be an utter nonstarter. Denial as the simple explanation for no proof yet? Slam dunk. When one engages the evidence, the demurrers can be easily brushed aside. Isn't everything in bigfootdom assumptions one way or another. And as far as these laymen accounts they are the same sort of people who claim to see angels, ghosts, demons, or gods with no firm grasp of the rules of the heavens and hells. Everyone has seen the pgf and everyone has been to the zoo.
Guest Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 Heck, they don't even need to go to the zoo. Big furry biped? Just describe a really tall human hippie. Long, dirty hair, smells bad, hangs out in the trees. Boom. Bigfoot.
dmaker Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 ^^^A whole bunch of assumptions there, and still there's all that evidence, unaddressed. A biologically-correct hallucination (and I mean utterly, right down to biomechanics, primate behavioral and physical traits unknown to most laymen, and plausible candidates in the fossil record) being constructed by thousands of non-biologists is, to me, so much a stretch as to be an utter nonstarter. Denial as the simple explanation for no proof yet? Slam dunk. When one engages the evidence, the demurrers can be easily brushed aside. How perfect is this description though? You mention this alot, but I come across things that seem to disagree with that notion. For instance, Patty swung her arms while walking, so BF reports have arm swinging as a hallmark of a genuine report. Yet, primates are not known for arm swinging when walking. Also, Patty had hair covered breasts, again primates do not have hair covered breasts. BF is also often depicted chasing down and killing and eating deer. Yet I have never read anything anywhere that indicates that known large primates do anything of the sort. Most stick to nuts and fruit and while predation does happen it is not, anywhere that I have read, of species as large and agile as a deer. I don't see this "perfect" picture that you describe. What I see is a mixture of behaviours that don't really seem to jive with your perfect picture, but fit quite nicely when the creature being described is a social construct that picks up new behaviours as people seem inclined to include them in the reports. Not to say that this applies to all of the behaviours and attributes, but the picture seems far less perfect than you portray.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 The arm swing, bipedalism and hair covered breasts isn't really a problem in my opinion. The real problem is that this animal is purported to have characteristics that are seen only in non-human primates and characteristics that are seen only in human primates all at the same time. It's almost like something out of a fairy tale. I suspect that if such an animal is ever discovered, it would have a large impact on what we know about the relationship between human and non-human primates.
norseman Posted July 21, 2013 Admin Posted July 21, 2013 ^^^A whole bunch of assumptions there, and still there's all that evidence, unaddressed. A biologically-correct hallucination (and I mean utterly, right down to biomechanics, primate behavioral and physical traits unknown to most laymen, and plausible candidates in the fossil record) being constructed by thousands of non-biologists is, to me, so much a stretch as to be an utter nonstarter. Denial as the simple explanation for no proof yet? Slam dunk. When one engages the evidence, the demurrers can be easily brushed aside. How perfect is this description though? You mention this alot, but I come across things that seem to disagree with that notion. For instance, Patty swung her arms while walking, so BF reports have arm swinging as a hallmark of a genuine report. Yet, primates are not known for arm swinging when walking. Also, Patty had hair covered breasts, again primates do not have hair covered breasts. BF is also often depicted chasing down and killing and eating deer. Yet I have never read anything anywhere that indicates that known large primates do anything of the sort. Most stick to nuts and fruit and while predation does happen it is not, anywhere that I have read, of species as large and agile as a deer. I don't see this "perfect" picture that you describe. What I see is a mixture of behaviours that don't really seem to jive with your perfect picture, but fit quite nicely when the creature being described is a social construct that picks up new behaviours as people seem inclined to include them in the reports. Not to say that this applies to all of the behaviours and attributes, but the picture seems far less perfect than you portray. Do humans swing their arms while walking? Yes we do. Do humans have hair on our breasts? Yes we do. It's not generally as pronounced on women as it is in men for Homo Sapiens..........but women still have it. Women obviously will do things to get rid of it as well. http://www.steadyhealth.com/woman_hairy_breast_t61641.html Do apes hunt animals that are agile in coordination with each other? Yes they do. I know you do not believe in Sasquatch and I respect that. But no where do I see any of the three traits that you take exception to as a giant leap of faith concerning great Apes. And let's keep in mind that we humans are a great Ape too.
dmaker Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) That hairy breast pic is just wrong dude. Yet still kinda right... Edited July 21, 2013 by AaronD to bring language to compliance
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 ^^^A whole bunch of assumptions there, and still there's all that evidence, unaddressed. A biologically-correct hallucination (and I mean utterly, right down to biomechanics, primate behavioral and physical traits unknown to most laymen, and plausible candidates in the fossil record) being constructed by thousands of non-biologists is, to me, so much a stretch as to be an utter nonstarter. Denial as the simple explanation for no proof yet? Slam dunk. When one engages the evidence, the demurrers can be easily brushed aside. How perfect is this description though? You mention this alot, but I come across things that seem to disagree with that notion. For instance, Patty swung her arms while walking, so BF reports have arm swinging as a hallmark of a genuine report. Yet, primates are not known for arm swinging when walking. Also, Patty had hair covered breasts, again primates do not have hair covered breasts. BF is also often depicted chasing down and killing and eating deer. Yet I have never read anything anywhere that indicates that known large primates do anything of the sort. Most stick to nuts and fruit and while predation does happen it is not, anywhere that I have read, of species as large and agile as a deer. I don't see this "perfect" picture that you describe. What I see is a mixture of behaviours that don't really seem to jive with your perfect picture, but fit quite nicely when the creature being described is a social construct that picks up new behaviours as people seem inclined to include them in the reports. Not to say that this applies to all of the behaviours and attributes, but the picture seems far less perfect than you portray. Arm-swinging in just the manner seen in the Patterson figure is reported, many times. As one who has read them, well, if one thinks people are making that up, or copycatting it, one has to prove that to me. So far, nada. And using "other primates" as one's template doesn't wash. Do tarsiers kill bushbuck and bushpig and baboon? Do gibbons? No, but chimps do; and the animals chimps kill are comparable to them in size, aggressiveness and mobility. That a primate kills deer squares very well with what other primates observed do. Do gorillas hurtle through trees? No, but numerous primates do. Does that invalidate gorillas? The consistencies in the reports are something that one can feel through one's bootsoles with the proper understanding of animals and experience of the outdoors. (And of course the ability to properly reflect upon same.) Again, I'm still waiting for anyone skeptical of what's being reported to prove their assertions to me. I side with the proponents for two reasons: Greater effort and superior results.
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) ^^^A whole bunch of assumptions there, and still there's all that evidence, unaddressed. A biologically-correct hallucination (and I mean utterly, right down to biomechanics, primate behavioral and physical traits unknown to most laymen, and plausible candidates in the fossil record) being constructed by thousands of non-biologists is, to me, so much a stretch as to be an utter nonstarter. Denial as the simple explanation for no proof yet? Slam dunk. When one engages the evidence, the demurrers can be easily brushed aside. How perfect is this description though? You mention this alot, but I come across things that seem to disagree with that notion. For instance, Patty swung her arms while walking, so BF reports have arm swinging as a hallmark of a genuine report. Yet, primates are not known for arm swinging when walking. Also, Patty had hair covered breasts, again primates do not have hair covered breasts. BF is also often depicted chasing down and killing and eating deer. Yet I have never read anything anywhere that indicates that known large primates do anything of the sort. Most stick to nuts and fruit and while predation does happen it is not, anywhere that I have read, of species as large and agile as a deer. I don't see this "perfect" picture that you describe. What I see is a mixture of behaviours that don't really seem to jive with your perfect picture, but fit quite nicely when the creature being described is a social construct that picks up new behaviours as people seem inclined to include them in the reports. Not to say that this applies to all of the behaviours and attributes, but the picture seems far less perfect than you portray. Do humans swing their arms while walking? Yes we do. And yes, I didn't point out in my post above that you bet we swing our arms when walking. (Never mind that we're the only (confirmed) primate that habitually walks bipedally, which might explain why "primates are not known for arm swinging when walking.") Observers seeing sasquatch do it report a much more obtrusive movement, notable to them as distinct from what humans do. And one wouldn't expect differences? One would. And indeed, the locomotor adaptations of sasquatch appear different from ours. Edited July 21, 2013 by DWA
Recommended Posts