Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

It most certainly is and here I am whining about it . Now you will notice that I myself didn't actually say that Crowlogic was whining about the "whiners". And there's the difference. Now you may say that I'm whining in my defense, and that may be true, but then I could would very quickly and easily balloon that into the BFF being populated by nothing but whiners even if only fending off attacks or some perceived wrong something or other.

I think most of know when we whine about the whiners. That isn't really the issue. It's all about the challenging use of the word. It has no place on a supposedly mature Forum. There are better ways to say things Though most might only be allowed in the PMP section

Edited September 8, 2015 by hiflier

[roguefooter]

This is ridiculous. Evidently your deepest thoughts into either endeavor is chuckling at the National Enquirer headlines while buying beer at the check out encounter.

Evidence for Ape men? We have them.......we have plenty of fossils in Africa and Asia that is the bedrock in our understanding of human evolution. At this time we do not have proof of a extant Ape man in north America. And this may be because there is nothing out there to shoot an drag in.

We have zero evidence that aliens exist, despite our best and brightest assuring us they are out there. But if......if they are traveling to Earth from many light years away? We can safely assume they are well beyond falling for zagnut bait stations, and it would be more likely that it would be the human in the trap and not the other way around. The most popular hypothesis by scientists about how a type three civilization would carry out galactic exploration is by using robots to do it anyhow.

Its a apples and oranges comparison.

 

 

So Bigfoot is now directly connected to existing fossils? How and when did that happen? Hate to tell you but Aliens have also been described as resembling known fossils- like the elongated skulls, etc. Can we give them some of that fossil record too?

 

Seems as though you're arguing out of desire rather than fact. Your opinion of Aliens is irrelevant and is no different than those that scoff at Bigfoot. A lot of people out there will tell you differently.

 

My argument is based off of an objective view of the evidence that's been presented on both sides. Lots and lots of questionable evidence in abundance- just like Bigfoot. In that they are directly comparable- with loads of parallels between the two. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Crowlogic]

Hello Crowlogic,

 

 

 

Another forum member whined about my thread devoted to this post so to avoid  tears and fits I've moved it here.

 

"whined"? Is that all the respect you can muster? "tears"? Yep, I guess it is.........

Whining is complaining.  Tears are best reserved for serious.  Whine when you get stuck at a long red light.  Cry when the bozo behind you totals your car because they didn't see the light turn red.

 

But to keep on topic no bigfoot does not exist.  IMO we're in the bottom of the 9th  and  it's not looking well for team fur.  

Edited September 9, 2015 by Crowlogic

[hiflier]

Hello Crowlogic,

LOL, you're right- Team Fur is most definitely on the ropes. But then it would seem that TF has always been on the ropes? The body, the body, the body, where is that body? TTTT we all want to know that one. It's why I am stuck in the middle like a good little skeptic.

[norseman]

This is ridiculous. Evidently your deepest thoughts into either endeavor is chuckling at the National Enquirer headlines while buying beer at the check out encounter.

Evidence for Ape men? We have them.......we have plenty of fossils in Africa and Asia that is the bedrock in our understanding of human evolution. At this time we do not have proof of a extant Ape man in north America. And this may be because there is nothing out there to shoot an drag in.

We have zero evidence that aliens exist, despite our best and brightest assuring us they are out there. But if......if they are traveling to Earth from many light years away? We can safely assume they are well beyond falling for zagnut bait stations, and it would be more likely that it would be the human in the trap and not the other way around. The most popular hypothesis by scientists about how a type three civilization would carry out galactic exploration is by using robots to do it anyhow.

Its a apples and oranges comparison.

 

So Bigfoot is now directly connected to existing fossils? How and when did that happen? Hate to tell you but Aliens have also been described as resembling known fossils- like the elongated skulls, etc. Can we give them some of that fossil record too?

 

Seems as though you're arguing out of desire rather than fact. Your opinion of Aliens is irrelevant and is no different than those that scoff at Bigfoot. A lot of people out there will tell you differently.

 

My argument is based off of an objective view of the evidence that's been presented on both sides. Lots and lots of questionable evidence in abundance- just like Bigfoot. In that they are directly comparable- with loads of parallels between the two.

Its been there all along.......its factual. We have fossil evidence of something LIKE bigfoot aka a bipedal hominid. We do NOT have fossil evidence of Alien life, not a microbe (2nd genesis theory) nor little green men..... again thats a fact!!!! Its NOT an opinion in either case!!!!!

What ever parallels you would like to draw between the two is your own perogative of course.

[David NC]

The lack of fossil evidence to support the Panda was also thrown around by scientists until they actually got a specimen in the 1920' " after an EXPEDITION FUNDED BY THE FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY"    AFTER the obtaining the specimen they found they had a fossil record for the panda for several million years. This is evidence that you cannot say we do not have a fossil record of what may be a Sasquatch with all the varying and some large hominid bones that the museums have. 

 

Western discovery

The West first learned of the giant panda on 11 March 1869, when the French missionary Armand David^[56] received a skin from a hunter. The first Westerner known to have seen a living giant panda is the German zoologist Hugo Weigold, who purchased a cub in 1916. Kermit and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., became the first Westerners to shoot a panda, on an expedition funded by the Field Museum of Natural History in the 1920s. In 1936, Ruth Harkness became the first Westerner to bring back a live giant panda, a cub named Su Lin^[68] which went to live at the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago.

 

 

The Giant Panda was once as mythical and elusive as Bigfoot. Once captured, we were able to identify fossil records that concluded the existence of the Giant Panda for several million years, and yet it was only discovered within the last century. The first Giant Panda was not captured until November 9, 1927. 

The story of the Giant Panda is significant, because even after it was spotted; it took another 60 years and hundreds of highly skilled trackers to finally capture one. So elusive in its natural habitat, the Giant Panda had never been photographed in the wild until 1982 by Franz Camenzind for ABC. 

 

 

We are talking about a bear that only eats bamboo. We are not talking about an omnivorous primate. The Chinese knew about them for centuries but that was just folklore and myth written down in their anecdotal stories. It was 113 years before one was photographed in the wild.    We will give the photographers a break and call it 77 years since Kodak produced the first real handheld with film in 1905. What took them sooooo long, 77 years to get a photo,  WHaaaatt.

 

Going to have to dig up some better excuses for it is just a mental construct by people.

If I were going to use my "imagination" in the woods to create a mental construct I think it would be more along the lines of a wood nymph or something not an hairy ape/caveman that a person would have trouble getting a mental grasp on.

 

 

 

 

[roguefooter]

norseman, on 08 Sept 2015 - 6:05 PM, said:

Its been there all along.......its factual. We have fossil evidence of something LIKE bigfoot aka a bipedal hominid. We do NOT have fossil evidence of Alien life, not a microbe (2nd genesis theory) nor little green men..... again thats a fact!!!! Its NOT an opinion in either case!!!!!

What ever parallels you would like to draw between the two is your own perogative of course.

 

 

No, not factual at all. It's only opinion. We do not have fossil evidence for either and we can't even make the claim of what they're factually LIKE. We can only guess what it is or what it's like- because we don't really know. Those guesses do not translate into facts.

 

We do not know anything about real Bigfoot anatomy. You're only assuming by the descriptions that it's some kind of great ape or relation.

 

People have reported that Aliens look like humans and have made hybrid offspring with humans. According to their descriptions they could also claim a connection to the fossil record, being LIKE humans. There's nothing factual about any of that either. 

 

You could scoff at the Alien field all you like, but it's full of real people claiming they have real evidence just like we see here.

Edited September 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[Rockape]

I agree there is no "smoking gun" identical match, but the fossil record is full of ape-like hominids, and there is also Gigantopithecus Blacki. My problem with the known fossils are that none that could be a match have the large feet, but then some are merely partial remains, we don't exactly know all about them. I leave the door open there.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Rockape

[southernyahoo]

Does bigfoot exist? I think yes, but then I define it as a hairy hominin that lives in the wild like a primitive species of man. I don't think what some people would define BF as, exists, except in their minds.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I believe they exist in a lot of places, but I don't think they're an undiscovered species of ape. 

[norseman]

norseman, on 08 Sept 2015 - 6:05 PM, said:

Its been there all along.......its factual. We have fossil evidence of something LIKE bigfoot aka a bipedal hominid. We do NOT have fossil evidence of Alien life, not a microbe (2nd genesis theory) nor little green men..... again thats a fact!!!! Its NOT an opinion in either case!!!!!

What ever parallels you would like to draw between the two is your own perogative of course.

 

No, not factual at all. It's only opinion. We do not have fossil evidence for either and we can't even make the claim of what they're factually LIKE. We can only guess what it is or what it's like- because we don't really know. Those guesses do not translate into facts.

 

We do not know anything about real Bigfoot anatomy. You're only assuming by the descriptions that it's some kind of great ape or relation.

 

People have reported that Aliens look like humans and have made hybrid offspring with humans. According to their descriptions they could also claim a connection to the fossil record, being LIKE humans. There's nothing factual about any of that either. 

 

You could scoff at the Alien field all you like, but it's full of real people claiming they have real evidence just like we see here.

If you think connecting the dots from Bigfoot or Yeti or any cryptid hominid to the fossil record of extinct hominids is on PAR with claiming fossil evidence of Alien hybrids?

I cannot help you, this is silly.

When you have proof of Aliens at some point in Earth's history? Like we do with upright bipedal homonids?

Get back to us!

[roguefooter]

^I'm not connecting any dots. I already told you that my argument is based on the evidence- from anecdotal to tangible. One field versus another.

 

Since you don't see Aliens on any level of reality, are all of those people and reports wrong? Would you say that it could all be attributed to misidentifications, hoaxes, and delusions?

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter:

Yeah, about that Alien thing?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/cia-admits-government-lied-about-ufo-sightings.html

It's time to drop that argument.

Edited September 10, 2015 by hiflier

[roguefooter]

^Since when does the Government's word override all the people who have had sightings and encounters? How did it suddenly become so easy and accepting with you folks?

 

 

When you have proof of Aliens at some point in Earth's history? Like we do with upright bipedal homonids?

Get back to us!

 

 

There is no proof that Bigfoot is an "upright bipedal hominid" so what's your point?

 

Since there are others on the forum that don't share the "upright bipedal hominid" view, should they leave the conversation as well?

Edited September 10, 2015 by roguefooter

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter,

I'm not "you folks" so I can't speak for anyone else. The Summary in 1968 of project Blue Book (the Condon Report) stated that 95% of UFO sighting could be explained as Human constructed things like weather balloons and natural phenomenon. They also went on to say that UFO's were not extraterrestrial and that they were not a threat to national security. Well, D'UH! They said the other 5% percent they couldn't explain. They couldn't explain them because they weren't ALLOWED to as it WAS a national security issue. Other than orange plasma orbs which are natural phenomenon the rest of todays stuff is hoaxes and disinformationists lies.

There's nothing from space. If you were up on things like Cassini, New Horizons, Mars probes, and the solar observation from the other side of the Sun by two satellites called STEREO "A" and "STEREO "B" You's be agreeing with me instead of keeping your head in the sand. The UFO side of the argument is dead. Accept it. The first directive of any kind of space exploration is determining if anything or anyone is out there. It's the military's first responsibility and order of business. Science must comply with it and for good reason. Think about it. So the Alien thing is beating an already dead horse.

Edited September 10, 2015 by hiflier