Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[guyzonthropus]

If SWW is at the blackboard, i ll be sitting in the front row, as that is the place where actual interaction, therefore discourse and learning, occurs most effectively.

These guys are exerting only the effort it takes to avoid us for the most part. It would make little sense to do otherwise. Unlike the other large primates, these guys are quite possibly the apex predator in their environment, and this will have significant impact on their cognitive ability, especially in light of reputed cooperative and strategic hunting, strategic avoidence of humans, individually, as a group and as a species, as well as managing to not get hit by cars over the course of all those road crossings, which both fosters and displays a more developed degree of sentience within the species itself.

As for Dr Meldrum's assesment of their intelligence, how does he determine this from print casts? I mean, sure, you can get a lot of information from foot structure, dermal ridges, and other locomotive elements, but i dont see cognitive ability as a part of those conclusions....

Whats next? The head of the Phrenology Dept. from Fresno State and his theory of digestive issues resultng from consuming tubers without the usual field mouse garnish?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Yet they continue to elude us and thwart efforts to capture,kill, or even photograph effectively one of their kind, while the chimp is part of mainstream awareness, having filled roles of zoo exibit, museum piece, lab animal, even co-star with a president during his hollywood days. No, i would figure on the sasquatch being a more clever monkey than Meldrum chooses to state at this point. Their talent for evasion alone indicates that there is more to the story.

Yet they continue to elude us?  Or more likely yet some continue to delude themselves that the thing exists.

[guyzonthropus]

Tis not delusion to consider the possibilty of currently unrecognized species inhabiting the continent, but it is certain folly to dismiss the idea out of hand, when multiple indicators consistently describe a creature to an extent that, were it of a different nature(ie other than a large, uncontainable, hairy possible hominid) would surely merit far more academic interest and investigation than it has received thus far.

But, then again, i ve always held the view that western society is fundementally founded on the princilples of both delusion and denial. So, perhaps we each represent one side of the same coin....presuming there actually is a coin, and that it indeed has two sides......

Edited June 10, 2015 by guyzonthropus

[Guest DWA]

 

I have speculated on an intelligence on par with a gorilla (which do have a little more brain neurons than a chimpanzee) to perhaps on limited to Australopithecus afarensis or Homo habilis.  It really comes to the daily calorie intake to support a combination of body mass and number of brain neurons.

And I'd never say that speculation on the broad band of likely intelligence isn't warranted.  The encounter reports don't really give us much reason to propose "human, if not better."  Again, the "elusiveness" is largely our denial and lassitude operating; the animal isn't abetting that as much as many apparently think it is.

[norseman]

Yet they continue to elude us and thwart efforts to capture,kill, or even photograph effectively one of their kind, while the chimp is part of mainstream awareness, having filled roles of zoo exibit, museum piece, lab animal, even co-star with a president during his hollywood days. No, i would figure on the sasquatch being a more clever monkey than Meldrum chooses to state at this point. Their talent for evasion alone indicates that there is more to the story.

Its time to dispense with this faulty line of reasoning once and for all........

We film and photograph lost tribes in the Amazon and in New Guniea, and as fellow humans they are just as smart as we are. And they living as stone age peoples are very "in tune" with their surroundings.

So does that make Sasquatch then smarter than humans? And the smartest living being in the known cosmos? Or are there other more probable factors at work here? Such as remoteness and scarcity?

[Guest DWA]

So does that make Sasquatch then smarter than humans? And the smartest living being in the known cosmos? Or are there other more probable factors at work here? Such as remoteness and scarcity?

 

Well, not to mention denial that a garden-variety primate is being seen by lots of people, whom, you know, scientists just don't believe.

Edited June 11, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

I'd recommend to anyone that if his assertions do not carry imperative weight with his doctors he needs new doctors, as they say, stat.

 

"Conclusions without evidence are guesses."

 

Well, note to bigfoot skeptics.  Do tell!  I was wondering how many times I would have to say that, how many different ways, before one got it!  Bigfoot skepticism is one huge guess, unencumbered by evidence (or any understanding what that might be).

It is also unencumbered by wishful thinking and circus atmospheres.  I don't know if you are one of the principles of the organization you pontificate for but I wouldn't rule out some folks are being had down there.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

I wouldn't rule out that unicorns are real.  Evidence for one's proposition, however, is another matter.

 

Anyone not paying attention to the evidence can say anything one wants about it.  Being taken seriously, however, is another matter.

Bigfoot skepticism is nothing but wishful thinking.  It's a form of reverse psychology practiced by jilted True Believers.  This is bedrock Psych 101.

[roguefooter]

Then you truly know nothing about "Bigfoot skepticism". A lot of skeptics were never true believers at any point, only optimistic people. A person could only be so optimistic without requiring something a bit more substantial.

[roguefooter]

 

Well, not to mention denial that a garden-variety primate is being seen by lots of people, whom, you know, scientists just don't believe.

 

Just curious DWA, but how many of those witness reports were actually done by the same person/persons? Do you even know? How difficult would it be for a single/group of persons and their friends to submit a bunch of Bigfoot reports? I'd be willing to bet that plenty of people had submitted reports just to see how easy it would be and the fun of seeing their story get posted somewhere. I'm sure a lot of people did that in the old days too to get themselves in the local newspaper. Just look at other older reports and follow their basic details.

 

How does one take something so simple, seriously?

Edited June 11, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just curious DWA, but how many of those witness reports were actually done by the same person/persons? Do you even know? How difficult would it be for a single/group of persons and their friends to submit a bunch of Bigfoot reports? I'd be willing to bet that plenty of people had submitted reports just to see how easy it would be and the fun of seeing their story get posted somewhere. I'm sure a lot of people did that in the old days too to get themselves in the local newspaper. Just look at other older reports and follow their basic details.

 

How does one take something so simple, seriously?

I've said essentially the same thing  many times now.  Bigfoot is so commonly available that anyone can now write a credible report.  It's one of the reasons simple reporting is one of the weakest links in the chain.

[Guest DWA]

I'm gonna guess that is three untenable pretenses.