Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 You missed the part about theorized. It's not a theory if there is no supporting evidence, it is speculation. There is a theory that would say "deathtrap" or predator feeding site, as that would be a logical insinuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 You certainly go full bore when you paint yourself into corner. Evidences that support the gravesite theory are: 1) all individuals excavated so far are either very young or very old. Like a graveyard. 2) none of the individuals excavated so far show any signs of predation. 3) no sign of death due to falling into the chamber they were found in. Now it's sciences turn to provide evidence that would invalidate the proposed theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 16, 2016 Admin Author Share Posted April 16, 2016 And there is no evidence to support that a predator could ever squeeze into that part of the cave let alone drag prey in with it. Nor is there evidence that the bodies were washed in. The bodies were put there on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 16, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 16, 2016 WesT Are you talking about this article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-700-new-species-extinct-human-found-in-cave-may-rewrite-history/ I find it very strange that these new found Humans would be found in a cave. They were not placed there and they were not found anywhere else, so what event took place that us humans had to take shelter in caves? If it was more then one person who placed these Humans in these caves who are obviously dead then where are the people that did so? so some event took placed where we had to go from living in the open to living in caves. I have been in caves in Mexico and they are not pretty, nor are they healthy. These people were found way back in the cave where there is no light, so did some thing happen where the earth was scorched for a long period of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 You certainly go full bore when you paint yourself into corner. Evidences that support the gravesite theory are: 1) all individuals excavated so far are either very young or very old. Like a graveyard. 2) none of the individuals excavated so far show any signs of predation. 3) no sign of death due to falling into the chamber they were found in. Now it's sciences turn to provide evidence that would invalidate the proposed theory. Perhaps you support the theory, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 It has been demonstrated time and time again that whenever bigfoot science and bigfoot paradigms are brought under the light of true science and true science paradigms that bigfootism is invited to remain the entertaining sideshow it's always been. Notwithstanding is that a single example of Hobbit remains constitutes an all but infinite amount more that the sum total of actual bigfoot material. I don't consider you a true scientist or qualified to declare what is and is not true science. ^Negative. It is common for bigfooters to adorn themselves with an overblown sense of self importance Anyone got a mirror? And what else can be expected from a bigfoot proponent such as yourself? Since you are at odds with my science and the science I adhere to can we please see what your brand of science has brought to the table that rivals that of real science. Dude, that's not surprising since you seem to make up your own rules as you go along. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Perhaps you support the theory, then? The only support a theory needs is evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 It has been demonstrated time and time again that whenever bigfoot science and bigfoot paradigms are brought under the light of true science and true science paradigms that bigfootism is invited to remain the entertaining sideshow it's always been. Notwithstanding is that a single example of Hobbit remains constitutes an all but infinite amount more that the sum total of actual bigfoot material. I don't consider you a true scientist or qualified to declare what is and is not true science. ^Negative. It is common for bigfooters to adorn themselves with an overblown sense of self importance Anyone got a mirror? Oh about bigfoot researchers and self importance pay attention to the top of the page the link opens to. http://ronmorehead.com/bigfoot-hoax-question/ I suppose we're even on the mutual negatives as my opinion is about the same for the science your side brings to the table. I do maintain that the tiny bit of Hobbit evidence is a virtual Everest compared to the bigfoot evidence which is still in the negative column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 I don't know Ron Morehead from, well, you. I do know that you have come up with a whole slew of ad hoc rules and refer to this as "my science" (i.e. your science). If there is a brand of science that can or needs to be defined as yours, hold it tight for what ever security it provides you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 ^Just as I suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 ^Just as I suspected you suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Crow Your comment about bigfoot researchers and self importance, who do you think you are You come on here and step on your pedestal and dictate what you think is science, thats total bs, you really have no idea, There is evidence out there, just because its not on this site means squat. Hyperthetically, if i were to come up with genuine evidence of a yowie, not video footage but definate proof in the way of hair, blood, bone or body part, what would your view be on bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 18, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 18, 2016 Crow Your comment about bigfoot researchers and self importance, who do you think you are You come on here and step on your pedestal and dictate what you think is science, thats total bs, you really have no idea, There is evidence out there, just because its not on this site means squat. Hyperthetically, if i were to come up with genuine evidence of a yowie, not video footage but definate proof in the way of hair, blood, bone or body part, what would your view be on bigfoot Yowie See Crow is not here to solve this mystery otherwise he be contributing more then what he is doing. No on the contrary, what he is doing is either harassing those who have had sightings for the satisfaction of saying how false our sightings are. Lets just a self importance and that's fine since this does light a fire in most of us to do some thing about this. Since it has fired you up, but you know that you have to be care full. We are not dealing some thing that is normal and some one like this can lead people like us in dangerous situations with these creatures. I say this since this can lead most ( or motivate most of us) of us to a comfortable situation trying to prove them to naysayers. Maybe his intentions are good , but we also have to believe that he never encountered these creatures either. His experience with these creatures is zero yet , here we are arguing trying to prove a point who maybe has no interest . Yet one does wonder why he does try so hard, so maybe he really wants to understand this phenomenon. I know that if I was so skeptical in which at one time I was I be looking for the truth. It would not be on a forum but out in the field with the most updated report where I would spend nights in that area trying my best to have a sighting of my own. Just my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) Perhaps you support the theory, then? The only support a theory needs is evidence. Burial is a very recent practice by Sapiens and Neanderthals. It does not seem that the Hobbit was Sapien or even, perhaps, human. Edited April 18, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 As far as we know right now, Sapiens and Neanderthal are the only one's who've practiced burial. And at the same time, I don't think I have to remind anyone not to fall in love with what we think we know about our ancestors. It can all change in a heartbeat at any time. Hobbit is interesting. It is in the genus homo yet has Australopthicene body features. We'll just have to be patient and let science do it's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts