Why Sasquatch should Exist,,,

[Rockape]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

 there are those who see through the subterfuge.  

 

I just like to occasionally poke him with a sharp stick.

 

 

5 hours ago, Twist said:

Gee I wonder why he has a shark as an avatar????

 

They have the same IQ, and mouth size.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Rockape

[norseman]

5 hours ago, Twist said:

DMaker throws out just a little piece of bait but look at all the fishes he catches!     Gee I wonder why he has a shark as an avatar???? 

 

I believe this to be the reason.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, Rockape said:

 

I just like to occasionally poke him with a sharp stick.

 

 

 

They have the same IQ, and mouth size.

Yeah, I can flap my gums with the best of them, but low IQ does not really apply. 

 

[MikeZimmer]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Evidently it isn't because they're still allowed here.

 

Unfortunately, some trolls are cunning enough to avoid banishment. Occasionally, they do over-reach, but that usually takes a long time. Maybe it is better to avoid false alarms, rather than thinking we have detected the signature of a troll. However, the trolls ((obvious to some of us) really degrade the quality of the forum.

[hiflier]

But the signature IS detected. The sole purpose of trolling is Disruption.

[Rockape]

4 hours ago, dmaker said:

low IQ does not really apply

 

True, sharks are actually pretty smart.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

He is not a troll at all. What he is a intelligent well informed realist. 

The type of individual that needs real proof to accept ape men living in the modern world. As I do and the majority of the population. One specimen will convince us all. Until then the creature remains undocumented and the myth continues to be nothing more than a great story. 

I respect faith and hope. I being a man of science and religious understands the importance of faith. 

 

 

 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The point of this thread is not trying to prove existence, but why it can exist. The reasoning I have undertaken is that because a niche opened up as man progressed from being a hunter and gatherer to a more agricultural existence, something would of necessity fill the gap as a hunter and gatherer. By all indications we have of supposed Sasquatch behavior this is how they exist, hunting deer and other mammals, amphibians, and fish and birds, while taking advantage of plant related food sources as well, berries, roots, crops, and the like. They are nomadic in territories that seem somewhat defined, they do not set up camp for any length of time. Where resources are abundant they might rely on a smaller area given ample cover. The reason humans see them at all is because they cannot resist the food that we provide through crops, garbage, pet food, and domesticated farm animals foods. Of course there is the occasional sighting deeper into the wilderness.

[hiflier]

28 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

He is not a troll at all. What he is a intelligent well informed realist. 

The type of individual that needs real proof to accept ape men living in the modern world. As I do and the majority of the population

 

Nice try on dmaker's behalf but it isn't any of those things that are objectionable. I think you are smart enough to know that what you say has never been the issue with ANY skeptic.

[ShadowBorn]

LCB

You are right that this does not have to be about why they might exist or if they exist. It about the reasoning of how life chose us and other creatures to exist within our world. Everything that lives today exist because it was chosen to live on this giant rock that floats about our Universe. So who can say that we do not coexist with a creature that wonders our wilderness that has been seen by many people through out the world? Skeptics who have it in them to deny their existence on the mere fact that they have never had an encounter for them selves. It is much easier to criticize and ridicule on the fact that science might be wrong and to admit this would throw the science academics into a frenzy. Just think what an actual body would do to the science world and how it or this creature would set back history of man kind. It would be devastating to their world.

 

This is why this subject gets attacked and will be no matter what gets thrown at them. (Now I am truly talking about the academics of science) Which is already being hit hard by findings of  Human remains dating back 85000 yrs back to Africa.  Which is already changing Human history. You can research this your selves if you want. But if this is changing Human history, imagine what a living creature will do to our world and our wilderness. I am sorry but I am seeing way more to this then what others may be seeing. I am not asking for criticism or ridicule but an explanation to what I know and what others have seen.

 

I Have no problem with Dmaker or any one else who seem to be very skeptical since this a very healthy attitude to have. After all, we are dealing with a creature who they say is nothing but a myth. But I have no explanation to what I have dealt with and I wish I did. LCB I surely hope that you find your answers. I wish that I could help in any way.( But feel like I am in a trap and wish that I could wiggle my way out of it.)

 

[Rockape]

2 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

The point of this thread is not trying to prove existence, but why it can exist. The reasoning I have undertaken is that because a niche opened up as man progressed from being a hunter and gatherer to a more agricultural existence, something would of necessity fill the gap as a hunter and gatherer.

 

There are numerous known predators, omnivores and herbivores to fill any niche left by humans becoming a civilized agrarian species. Nature would not need another hominid to fill that gap. I would agree there was an opportunity for one to step in, however if they did they were not capable of using that opportunity to advance their species. If they do exist, they are very low in number and on the verge of extinction, most likely even functionally extinct.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said:

I Have no problem with Dmaker or any one else who seem to be very skeptical since this a very healthy attitude to have.

 

He's not a skeptic though, he's a scofftic. A true skeptic keeps an open mind and will at least entertain the notion these creatures exist. I consider myself a true skeptic since I don't take either side in the debate as hard fact and if you'll notice I preface many of my posts about them with "if they exist". Dmaker will accept nothing but that they don't exist, have never existed and belittle's anyone who thinks they do. I agree with him on many of his points about why they don't, I just remain open to the possibility they might exist or have at sometime in the past.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

He is not a troll at all.

 

He was most certainly trolling with this post

 

Quote

Make believe hour is my favorite part of the day after nap hour, of course

 

 

Quote

What he is a intelligent well informed realist. 

 

Agreed, and he's intelligent enough to make his point without being snide and belittling.

 

Quote

The type of individual that needs real proof to accept ape men living in the modern world. As I do

 

Same here but I'm willing to discuss the possibility. Whether they do or don't is equally interesting to me. If they do it would be miraculous that a hominid species has been able to exist along side of us this long and go undetected by science. If they don't, there is some need for the human mind to make them exist.

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Rockape

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, Rockape said:

If they don't, there is some need for the human mind to make them exist.

I agree with most everything you said. What I don't get is why people cling to the idea that they "might" exist. There is literally no good reason to think they do. There are many, many reasons to think they do not. It's not about scofftic vs skeptic, that is pure nonsense. We're not talking about something that has any sort of genuine likelihood to be true. Saying that the evidence points to zero bigfeets is just simply reporting on reality. It is not scoffing anything. Calling yourself a skeptic while you jam your foot in the door for sasquatch, puts you in an ironic position to offer insight into your own bolded statement above. (bolding mine)

Edited April 12, 2018 by dmaker

[Squatchy McSquatch]

1 hour ago, Rockape said:

If they don't, there is some need for the human mind to make them exist.

 

I totally agree with the latter part of your statement.

[Rockape]

47 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I agree with most everything you said. What I don't get is why people cling to the idea that they "might" exist.

 

I don't "cling" to anything. I have no vested interest into whether they exist or not other than to observe the phenomenon.

 

Quote

There is literally no good reason to think they do.

 

I'd say that's arguable. I think Norse makes a good point when he says Sasquatch type creatures have existed in the past. They are in the fossil record. It's really a question if any somehow survived into more modern times.

 

Quote

There are many, many reasons to think they do not.

 

Agreed, many more than to think they do.

 

Quote

 Saying that the evidence points to zero bigfeets is just simply reporting on reality. It is not scoffing anything.

 

Agreed with the first point. You calling this thread "make believe hour" is scoffing and is something you do constantly.

 

 

Quote

Calling yourself a skeptic while you jam your foot in the door for sasquatch, puts you in an ironic position to offer insight into your own bolded statement above. (bolding mine)

 

Well, to me, a skeptic questions what some say is "settled science" just as much as they do claims of existence of an unknown hominid with no proof. Science is never "settled", there are numerous examples of things we believed as hard fact that later turned out to not be. It's simply a matter if one thinks there is reason to keep searching for answers, or thinking they have the answer which is rather conceited.

 

I accept there is no proof that Sasquatch exists, that's not up for argument in my opinion. That there will never be proof I don't accept. I'm willing to look at evidence presented and judge it on it's own merit. So far, I've found very little worth even considering and even less that might be acceptable as evidence.

 

 

[norseman]

36 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I agree with most everything you said. What I don't get is why people cling to the idea that they "might" exist. There is literally no good reason to think they do. There are many, many reasons to think they do not. It's not about scofftic vs skeptic, that is pure nonsense. We're not talking about something that has any sort of genuine likelihood to be true. Saying that the evidence points to zero bigfeets is just simply reporting on reality. It is not scoffing anything. Calling yourself a skeptic while you jam your foot in the door for sasquatch, puts you in an ironic position to offer insight into your own bolded statement above. (bolding mine)

 

The irony is completely in your own lap. Unless you subscribe to the idea that Aliens play with Hominid DNA in the cosmos somewhere? Large hairy cousins of ours were a real fact for most of our evolution on this Earth. That’s a fact. The fossil record bears this out.....and continues to do so.

 

So this whole existence debate is DEAD. It existed. Fact.

 

So now the debate can now move to several questions more germane to the topic at hand.

 

1- Extant or extinct?

 

We have no physical proof of a large North American Hominid at this time. Although we may have proof that a Hominid butchered a Mastadon 130000 years ago in California. Before science believes our species left Africa. If they are right? A Hominid cousin of some sort must be responsible.

 

We have no physical proof of a Yeti in Asia at this time. But in Asia we have discovered two new species of Hominid. One of which lives on in our own DNA the Denisovans. Mind blowing! The other the Hobbit that has a fossil record to the mind shattering short period of time of 15000 years ago. Known as Ebu Gogo to the aboriginal tribes of that region. 

 

No good reason? I’m a fairly logical fellow.....and the one thing I know about science? Is that the door is never shut, especially when the fossil record is as rich as it is.

 

2 - Where?

 

Obviously much to DWA’s disappointment not all reports can be taking at face value. So if we look at North America where would be a good place to go look? Certainly not a park in Chicago.... I wouldn’t be afraid though to continue looking in the coastal forests of the Pacific NW. They just found human evidence that we followed the coastlines and skirted the glaciers down the Pacific coast earlier than thought. If a earlier radiation of Hominid had made the trek to North America? It would have followed a similar route. Also to be noted that it’s more than likely that the Hobbit uses some sort of raft to cross salt water to get to the island of Flores.

 

As for Asia? While heavily populated in some areas it also holds vast wildernesses too. Siberia, Mongolia, SE Asia, Micronesia. 

 

Do we need physical evidence of a hairy Hominid in North America? YES! In Asia? I think you can start perusing the fossil record to find a culprit. Still need physical proof it’s alive and well now. But it’s not some grand leap of faith. The Coelacanth just needs to be flushed from its hiding place.......

 

But back to North America for a minute. Our cousins who left Africa long before us? Fought glacial Europe....expanded into the jungles of SE Asia. Lived in Siberia...... They had two feet much like our own, and traveled thousands upon thousands of miles. Is it logical that they would have stopped short? If we made the trek to North America? I think they were just as capable. And the fossil bed may yet yield her secrets to us.