Guest Crowlogic Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Winnipeg sits on a treeless plain so is hardly BF habitat. Because you choose to ignore evidence and insist on a body on a slab to convince you of BF, does not give you the right to call me a liar about what I have experienced. I haven't called you a liar! Let's be clear about one thing the topic of bigfoot is not a topic steeped in integrity. Each and every proponent lives in the shadow of the armies of nonsense purveyors that have littered the scene from day one.The honest Joe's have sounded as convincing as the dishonest Dans. You can't tell one from the other. I will say it again I believe that you believe you've seen bigfoot. If you see anyone disagreeing with what you say you've seen as calling you a liar the problem is not with the person disagreeing with you.
norseman Posted January 11, 2015 Admin Posted January 11, 2015 Habilis goes back almost 2.5 million years ago. Yes tools for survival but that says nothing of bigfoot. I didn't say Vancouver Island I said Winnipeg. Better yet try as a modern human being naked and without tools and fire and survive a winter on Vancouver. We can put bigfoot in Florida in January no problem the lad will do fine. But the question raised about surviving winter is not one of moderate areas. No matter how you slice it when it comes down to 24/7/365 survival in real winter bigfoot has to be handed special dispensation/adaptations and have no precedence in higher primates. Since bigfoot are reported in typical winter conditions confining them to more reasonable climates is not going to address bigfoot in winter. As usual it requires too many back flips to keep bigfoot going. At least it does me. Start by understanding that I am no longer a passenger on the bigfoot belief train. I think in the areas of incredulity concerning Bigfoot? Winter time survival is not as giant of a hurdle as skeptics propose. At least not in the Pacific NW, I cannot speak for other areas. And it absolutely has precedence in human history. As I stated before, one million years ago ancient species in Europe did not have any technology that warded off the cold reliably. They did not build spears, teepees or fire. They took shelter were they could find, ate what they could find and huddled for body warmth. The idea that apes are tropical animals is a very narrow viewpoint. And ignores a good portion of our history. Bigfoot or no.
Guest Crowlogic Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I think in the areas of incredulity concerning Bigfoot? Winter time survival is not as giant of a hurdle as skeptics propose. At least not in the Pacific NW, I cannot speak for other areas. And it absolutely has precedence in human history. As I stated before, one million years ago ancient species in Europe did not have any technology that warded off the cold reliably. They did not build spears, teepees or fire. They took shelter were they could find, ate what they could find and huddled for body warmth. The idea that apes are tropical animals is a very narrow viewpoint. And ignores a good portion of our history. Bigfoot or no. The list of atypical attributes is precisely the thing that works against it. Apes are not an arctic species and to add to the dispensation they are not a North American Species. Nothing about it adds up and that is the fatal flaw in the system. It requires a kind of hoo doo tack on of dispensation/traits to keep bigfoot on it's feet.
Incorrigible1 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, where are the bigfoot spending their winters? If they're foraging, they're exposing themselves to witnesses. If they're not, they're evidently hibernating. It's not too difficult to discover black bear hibernation dens, why not bigfoot?
SWWASAS Posted January 11, 2015 BFF Patron Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I haven't called you a liar! Let's be clear about one thing the topic of bigfoot is not a topic steeped in integrity. Each and every proponent lives in the shadow of the armies of nonsense purveyors that have littered the scene from day one.The honest Joe's have sounded as convincing as the dishonest Dans. You can't tell one from the other. I will say it again I believe that you believe you've seen bigfoot. If you see anyone disagreeing with what you say you've seen as calling you a liar the problem is not with the person disagreeing with you. I took it as being called a liar no matter what your intent. Perhaps the problem is you cannot tell one from another? You lump me in with nonsense purveyors and those of little integrity. I entered field research with great skepticism. I really did not think they were out there. In a matter of months I realized that BF was not a myth. I did not get that from armies of nonsense purveyors but from hot sweaty work in the field, 2 and 3 days a week for months, and being nearly scared to death when that myth nearly ran over me. Some of us have to do that because we are not the gifted ones who "know" just because they know or think books about primates tell them everything there is to know, even about unknown ones. Edited January 11, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
norseman Posted January 12, 2015 Admin Posted January 12, 2015 The list of atypical attributes is precisely the thing that works against it. Apes are not an arctic species and to add to the dispensation they are not a North American Species. Nothing about it adds up and that is the fatal flaw in the system. It requires a kind of hoo doo tack on of dispensation/traits to keep bigfoot on it's feet. Let's set Bigfoot to the side for a moment. Apes are both represented in the arctic and North America because we are here to represent the genus. But you originally stated that apes could not handle the cold without technology. Which I have shown to be false, based on fossil evidence based in Europe. The oldest fossils of apes in Europe are a million years old. The oldest known fire evidence in Europe is 400k old. While fire use by apes is older than 400k? No evidence of it has been found in Europe older than that date. And 1 million years ago most scientists believe that fire use was sporadic. If you walked from the Africa to the UK one million years ago? You would encounter cold weather, easily cold enough to die from hypothermia. So obviously some hominoids overcame this barrier anyhow despite the cold. Practical use of shelter and body heat I think was enough to overcome this barrier. And occasionally the use of fire to get warm and cook food was a welcome relief. But probably not a likely winter time event because of snow pack not conducive to lightning strikes giving the gift of fire.
Incorrigible1 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Apes are both represented in the arctic..... Citation? Oh, excuse me. Now I catch your drift, my apology. The primate / ape, man, is present in the arctic only because of their technology to allow such. Edited January 12, 2015 by Incorrigible1
norseman Posted January 12, 2015 Admin Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, where are the bigfoot spending their winters? If they're foraging, they're exposing themselves to witnesses. If they're not, they're evidently hibernating. It's not too difficult to discover black bear hibernation dens, why not bigfoot?A) I've seen Russians find bear dens using dogs, obviously that's illegal here. I think the most common way biologists find bear dens is with a radio collar and a yaggi antennae. Not legal for civilians either. But I don't believe it hibernates.B ) Winter time is not a time when most humans get out much. But it would leave tracks of its activities. Unless it stocks up like a squirell and holes up for winter. Another good article: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100707/full/news.2010.338.html Edited January 12, 2015 by norseman
MarkGlasgow Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Hibernation is just a loose hypothesis. I'm surprised to see it get Crowlogic frothing at the mouth. BF is BS right? Yes you may have made your point many times over before you packed up and left in a very public and undignified manner. But wait... You seem to be still here. Hmmmm.
GuyInIndiana Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Habilis goes back almost 2.5 million years ago. Yes tools for survival but that says nothing of bigfoot. I didn't say Vancouver Island I said Winnipeg. Better yet try as a modern human being naked and without tools and fire and survive a winter on Vancouver. We can put bigfoot in Florida in January no problem the lad will do fine. But the question raised about surviving winter is not one of moderate areas. No matter how you slice it when it comes down to 24/7/365 survival in real winter bigfoot has to be handed special dispensation/adaptations and have no precedence in higher primates. Since bigfoot are reported in typical winter conditions confining them to more reasonable climates is not going to address bigfoot in winter. As usual it requires too many back flips to keep bigfoot going. At least it does me. Start by understanding that I am no longer a passenger on the bigfoot belief train. Maybe I am missing a central fact about "when" old primate species may have lived and survived, but in arguing about "long long ago", North America wasn't where it is today and the same climate. What BF "might have been" to be what it is believed to BE, may have been a significant change. Just like man evolved?
norseman Posted January 12, 2015 Admin Posted January 12, 2015 ^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.world-map-interactive.info/images/world-map/world-pics/world-map-continetal-drift.jpg For the most part the continents have remained the same for the past 5 million years. Climates during that time have seen various ice ages and inter ice age periods.
Incorrigible1 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 The drift of continents is too slow to account for any ability of bigfoot or any other upright primate to have made it to North America and yet its remains not be discovered.
Guest DWA Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 So answer his contentions, eh? Oh, they've been answered, times beyond counting. We're just really patient around here. He could answer them himself, but bigfoot skeptics prefer the comfort of not going there, for whatever reason. Singular waste of time, if you ask me, coming here to post over and over and over and not bothering to learn about the subject under discussion. But this seems a hobby for some. The drift of continents is too slow to account for any ability of bigfoot or any other upright primate to have made it to North America and yet its remains not be discovered. Wha? And people here think habituators have issues. What does this even mean? What does plate tectonics have to do with this topic, at all? Nothing, thanks.
Incorrigible1 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 You dodge exceptionally well. I know, it's "science" fault, eh? Once again, and every time. Nudge that stylus, on the vinyl record, my friend.
Recommended Posts