Let's Do Some Math...

[Guest DWA]

No they're not.  I just said what they're backed up by.

 

"What you dearly wish to think" is not logic as most people define that word.  If you would like to pick a logic bit out of there I'd love to see it.

 

"People who know even less than me about this say it can't be real" isn't how logic, you know, works.

[Guest DWA]

Two skeptical shibboleths that we hear forever now were neatly tossed in the waste can by  the OP.

 

Period.

 

Not that they weren't tossed there long ago by folks in touch with the evidence, but, you know, never mind.

[Guest Llawgoch]

But.  They.  Weren't.

 

If there are 144 times fewer bigfoots than bears then numerically we expect (number of bigfoot carcasses) =  (Number of Bear Carcasses) / 144

 

We do not have that.

 

Therefore  for some reason Bigfoot carcasses are harder to come by than bear carcasses.

 

We need to discuss and explain the reason.

 

Therefore the OP has simply pointed out the need to discuss and explain the discrepancy.  It has not, as it claimed to do, removed the need to explain the discrepancy.

 

Can you really not follow this?  Please point out which of the above are "my assumptions".

 

Please note that this argument does not say anything about Bigfoot existing or not existing. It doesn't take a stance either way.  The reason for the discrepancy could be Bigfoot's superior intelligence, Bigfoot being interdimensional, or Bigfoot not existing.  It's irrelevant to the point.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest]

Hypothetically, the bear in my garbage can is the only one that matters to me. Ditto for the Sasquatch who steals my chickens.  

LOL, I hear that! I'm upset and we only have dogs trying to get in our 5 foot tall heavy plastic garbage containers provided by the city!

How can you keep a BF out of your garbage? How do you protect your chickens? Can you protect your chickens?

YIKES!! I think that I would move....away...far away...

Edited April 4, 2014 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

That, if I understand what you intend, I agree with.  The only way we would not have found them is if they are deliberately, intelligently, elusive.  I don't think it probable that a *large* dumb animal can live in space overlapping substantial human population without its existence being proven.   If you disbelieve in their existence, then you might take that as evidence supporting your position.  Since I **KNOW** they exist, I, instead, take it as proof (though not yet accepted) of high intelligence.   I don't seen any middle ground I can take seriously. 

 

MIB

One possible middle ground might be that bigfoot live in a particular region(s) and are not spread evenly across the country. I think this is more likely (if bigfoot is real) as it resembles other animal distributions and doesn't require super-human intelligence or magic.

[Guest DWA]

Well, "evenly" isn't it so much as "similarly to bears and other animals with wide distributions, they are found across the continent in suitable habitat."

Llawgoch:  Actually, you are not following this, but that's typical of bigfoot skeptics.

 

"We would have a carcass by now" is an assumption, and it is utterly unfounded.  Read reports?  Oh?  You don't?  They explain why we don't have a carcass.

 

Are you actually not following that?  Of course not, because you don't read up.  Not too surprising, that.

 

People have come across carcasses; have hit them with cars; and have shot them, cold dead.  They say that they have.  Were you, um, there?  Can you, um, prove otherwise?

 

The continual skeptical inability to grasp the major difference between "loads and loads and loads of people encountering them" and "confirmed by science" will always mystify me.

 

You follow that...right?

[Guest]

Bears are not found "evenly" spread out and I assume bigfoot is just as evenly spread out or perhaps even less so. I remain mostly doubtful of reports that are not close to boreal forest habitats like the north and west of US and Canada. A smaller population would fit better in a smaller ecological zone than spread out over a continent.

[MIB]

I think there are areas of varying concentration.   I think there are more, overall, than people (or at least most people) think.   I think it is their intelligence that allows them to share space without being detected more often than they are.

 

That said, though, I am also convinced that not all "detections" are accidents, some are by choice for a purposes or purposes. 

 

MIB

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well, "evenly" isn't it so much as "similarly to bears and other animals with wide distributions, they are found across the continent in suitable habitat."

Llawgoch:  Actually, you are not following this, but that's typical of bigfoot skeptics.

 

"We would have a carcass by now" is an assumption, and it is utterly unfounded.  Read reports?  Oh?  You don't?  They explain why we don't have a carcass.

 

Are you actually not following that?  Of course not, because you don't read up.  Not too surprising, that.

 

People have come across carcasses; have hit them with cars; and have shot them, cold dead.  They say that they have.  Were you, um, there?  Can you, um, prove otherwise?

 

The continual skeptical inability to grasp the major difference between "loads and loads and loads of people encountering them" and "confirmed by science" will always mystify me.

 

You follow that...right?

 

 

 

It is not an assumption.  I can't tell if you can genuinely not understand this or are just pretending.

 

The OP was based purely on numbers.

 

Based purely on numbers, it showed we ought to have a carcass.  (Have one.  Not have reports of one.  Have one.)  This is not an assumption.  it is statistically correct.  The post was making a statistical argument.

 

Therefore there must be some other factors at play.  Which the OP did not address.  And which we knew all along.

 

You actually SAY in your post there are other reasons we do not have one.  Then take me to task for saying that there must be other reasons we do not have one.

Seriously.  It's not hard.

 

And why do you keep going on about it being confirmed by science?   This is nothing to do with whether it's confirmed by science or whether it exists.  it's about the logic, or lack thereof,  of the argument put forward.  Do you actually read my posts of just look at them and spout your standard answer?

Edited April 5, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

^^^I'm just pretending.

 

Or I am just saying:  you are wrong.  Based purely on numbers, you are pulling a totally unfounded assumption out of your ...air.

We "should have" NOTHING we are in denial about.  This is what denial means.

[Guest Coonbo]

Bears are not found "evenly" spread out and I assume bigfoot is just as evenly spread out or perhaps even less so. I remain mostly doubtful of reports that are not close to boreal forest habitats like the north and west of US and Canada. A smaller population would fit better in a smaller ecological zone than spread out over a continent.

 

 

If you mean that BF are UN-evenly spread out, you are correct. However, I respectfully submit that you are mistaken concerning your doubts of reports away from boreal forests.  Boreal forests come up short in the categories of:  high, year-round multi-species game populations; high biological diversity; and interspersed areas of agriculture or timber management which create lots of browse opportunities and lots of "edge" cover, when those boreal forests are compared to the more prime BF habitat, found more predominantly in the states east of the Mississippi and along the Mississippi valley, and south of the Great Lakes.  I have found those attributes listed in the second paragraph of my post #89 of this thread to be what is required for high densities of BF.  The densities decrease rapidly as the quantity and quality of the attributes decrease.

[Guest keninsc]

However, no species I know of is evenly distributed, they all tend to gather in areas that has good food supplies or water or some other thing they need. Needs do vary according to species, time of year, etc.

 

Bigfoots have been reported in areas with very little vegetation, that is old growth trees and such. Why they were there is a mystery because no one can seem to study them.

[Guest Llawgoch]

^^^I'm just pretending.

 

Or I am just saying:  you are wrong.  Based purely on numbers, you are pulling a totally unfounded assumption out of your ...air.

We "should have" NOTHING we are in denial about.  This is what denial means.

 

 

Saying it is an assumption over and over again is not an argument.  There is my logic, above.  I'll number it.

 

 

1. There are 144 times fewer Bigfoots than bears (not my claim, the OPS)

 

2.  We have hundred of thousands of bear bodies  (not in dispute)

 

3.  Statistically we should expect thousands of Bigfoot bodies.    

 

4.  Therefore if  we do not have thousands of Bigfoots, then the numerical distribution cannot be the reason.

 

What you think is the OPs claim of 

 

3.  Therefore we should have no Bigfoot bodies

 

...follows logically while my number 3 is an assumption.  Explain why, please.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

And some cannot be helped past the big whopping assumptions that have been pointed out to them six ways to Sunday.

 

You're wrong.

 

I don't say so.

 

THE EVIDENCE DOES.

[Guest]

Llawgoch- don't know for sure but it has been assumed that the Sas bury their dead and/or the ratio to bear and the fact that the soil (in the PNW) is so acidic that all remains are either absolved or that the remains are eaten by other carnivors.