This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Guest RayG]

I implied no such thing, thank your strawman very much. I stated that topographical maps lend support to the statement that "every square mile is charted and explored and has been for many years". Thank you for confirming that, and what part of 'is charted' did you not understand?

Do YOU have maps with huge blank spots on them? Maybe it's time to upgrade to a new map.

RayG

[Guest Kerchak]

This is the model I use. I love it, except it has a specialty battery that requires a charger.......not the best option for a guy planning to live out of a cab-over camper off the grid for several months......

I read the reviews on that Huntster. It certainly seems a robust camera for the price. I know what you mean about the battery. If that runs out and you can't charge it up again well then.........???

Several months huh? Wow, that sounds like quite a trip.

By the way here is mine.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/c5000z-review/

Last time I used it in severe weather (snow blizzard) the lense 'hotted' up after being in my pocket and the pictures were kind of foggy. That's the only problem I found.

I'm with you. If attacked, I'll quite cheerfully shoot a bigfoot full of holes. But I have no responsibility to prove anything to anybody, there's no way I'm interested in going through what Paul DuChaillu or Bob Gimlin have endured, I don't know if I'm interested in assassinating a peaceful, bipedal ape just to satisfy the ignorant, and if those who wish to ignore the existing evidence are so adament about it (they don't even want the official wildlife management agencies conduct an initial review of the phenomenon), let them remain in accordance with their own desires.

Even if you were interested in blowing one away I suspect it would be a lot harder to actually do than some might think. Suppose it looks at you with a peaceful expression? Who could easily pull the trigger then? We have heard tales of hunters not be able to bring themselves to do it. Of course the nay sayers likely snicker at such tales but they make sense to me.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 27 September 2010 - 03:05 PM, said:

Can you give us the number and locations for leprechaun sightings, please? I'd like to review them.

No, I have no such information, but I agree that this would be a fun exercise.

I figured you'd counter with something to the effect that no one really believes in leprechauns.

Actually, I was hoping you'd refer me to leprechaun sightings on the internet so I could pick them apart. I should have known that you're too smart for such truck, although I'll bet some JREF denialists would have fallen for it.

I'm sure somebody truly believes in leprechauns in their mythical nature (little green suit, pot of gold, etc). But, unlike sasquatch, there is no trace evidence (alleged footprints, alleged green suit, alleged empty pot found at the end of a rainbow, etc) that I know of that is offered as evidence of the existence of leprechauns.

At least you should understand now why I'm not moved by Glickman's analysis.

No, I don't. Indeed, on a quick google search before I asked for leprechaun sightings, I saw one from Alabama (of course, in late March). Now, in accordance with Glickman's theory, I'll suggest that is a result of media exposure to leprechauns and St. Patrick's Day, not that a real leprechaun was sighted.

But, more importantly, it was clearly a spoof. Nobody is claiming with any seriousness that this sighting was real. Nor do Alabama aboriginals have any oral history of leprechauns in the area.

[Huntster]

Quote

I'm with you. If attacked, I'll quite cheerfully shoot a bigfoot full of holes. But I have no responsibility to prove anything to anybody, there's no way I'm interested in going through what Paul DuChaillu or Bob Gimlin have endured, I don't know if I'm interested in assassinating a peaceful, bipedal ape just to satisfy the ignorant, and if those who wish to ignore the existing evidence are so adament about it (they don't even want the official wildlife management agencies conduct an initial review of the phenomenon), let them remain in accordance with their own desires.

Even if you were interested in blowing one away I suspect it would be a lot harder to actually do than some might think. Suppose it looks at you with a peaceful expression? Who could easily pull the trigger then? We have heard tales of hunters not be able to bring themselves to do it. Of course the nay sayers likely snicker at such tales but they make sense to me.

Indeed. I am a bear hunter, but in no way, shape, manner, or form shoot any and all legal bears I can. If I did, I'd be awash in hides. I actually don't shoot them anymore unless it's a real special bear. It's just as fun to just interact with them than shoot them.

[Guest]

...

hic sunt dracones

[Guest TooRisky]

I implied no such thing, thank your strawman very much. I stated that topographical maps lend support to the statement that "every square mile is charted and explored and has been for many years". Thank you for confirming that, and what part of 'is charted' did you not understand?

Do YOU have maps with huge blank spots on them? Maybe it's time to upgrade to a new map.

RayG

Ray the last time things were mapped by hand was back in the time of Lewis and Clark... Since the dawn of flight all mapping have been done from the air and transferred by hand into a topographic map... Now it is satalites and no one has been deep into the forests mapping for ove a hunderd years... So your assumption that every square mile has been walked upon at one point or another, I would have to whole heartedly disagree...

[Guest]

^Not to mention that that isn't really a topographic map.

[Guest]

I can see my house on that map, cool!

[Guest parnassus]

there are several fallacies in the "undiscovered aircraft" argument: first, small aircraft often disintegrate when striking the earth, leaving pieces only a few feet across, which are often covered by soil, snow or vegetation, sooner or later. Unlike the visibility of bigfoot, which is 7feet tall, and must have a population of bigfoots, not just one, roaming around trying to get enough to eat, raise offspring, poop, leaving footprints, etc. Secondly, this aircraft was not on public land; the reason it had not been found was that it was in a small private piece of land just off a road, which had not been logged or open to hikers, bigfoot seekers, loggers, hunters, four wheelers, bikers, wildlife researchers, foresters, mining engineers, etc. This is unlike the national forest land where recreational folks are often doing their thing, on the old logging roads and grades, and using their topomaps and GPS and snowmobiles and four wheelers and dirt bikes and skis and snowshoes and good old boots. You can say people don't go there, but you have no evidence of that.

whatever the wildest parts of North America are, whatever few square miles, or the wild areas of Alaska, that is not where the bigfoots are being reported. They are being reported where people are. All over the place. And not a single biological trace of a single bigfoot. Ever. Not a hide, not a bone, not a body, no poop, hair, blood.

[Huntster]

there are several fallacies in the "undiscovered aircraft" argument: first, small aircraft often disintegrate when striking the earth, leaving pieces only a few feet across, which are often covered by soil, snow or vegetation, sooner or later.

Then how do they get found years later?

Unlike the visibility of bigfoot, which is 7feet tall, and must have a population of bigfoots, not just one, roaming around trying to get enough to eat, raise offspring, poop, leaving footprints, etc.

1) Thus, unlike a moving target like a live animal, the aircraft sits there and does not try to hide at the sound of an aircraft or searchers

2) There have been sightings of the animals "roaming around trying to get enough to eat, raise offspring, poop, leaving footprints, etc.". You just reject them because you weren't one of the people with the sightings.

Secondly, this aircraft was not on public land; the reason it had not been found was that it was in a small private piece of land just off a road, which had not been logged or open to hikers, bigfoot seekers, loggers, hunters, four wheelers, bikers, wildlife researchers, foresters, mining engineers, etc.

The Civil Air Patrol cannot see onto private lands? Is this why dope is so easily grown in the PNW?

This is unlike the national forest land where recreational folks are often doing their thing, on the old logging roads and grades, and using their topomaps and GPS and snowmobiles and four wheelers and dirt bikes and skis and snowshoes and good old boots. You can say people don't go there, but you have no evidence of that.

Conversely, I can say that sasquatches live primarily on private lands. You can say that they don't, but you have no evidence of that, and trying to gain such evidence could constitute trespass.

whatever the wildest parts of North America are, whatever few square miles, or the wild areas of Alaska, that is not where the bigfoots are being reported.

They most certainly are. There are scores of reports from Southeast Alaska in areas where there aren't roads for many, many miles, and the witnesses boated or flew into the area.

They are being reported where people are. All over the place. And not a single biological trace of a single bigfoot. Ever. Not a hide, not a bone, not a body, no poop, hair, blood.

There are scat samples, hair samples that are alleged to be sasquatch trace evidence, which don't match any local fauna, but which have nothing to be conclusively compared to.

[Guest RayG]

Ray the last time things were mapped by hand was back in the time of Lewis and Clark... Since the dawn of flight all mapping have been done from the air and transferred by hand into a topographic map... Now it is satalites and no one has been deep into the forests mapping for ove a hunderd years... So your assumption that every square mile has been walked upon at one point or another, I would have to whole heartedly disagree...

I assume no such thing, nor have have I argued that. Again, what part of 'is charted' did you not understand?

Mulder, I'm fully aware that map isn't a topo map, where did I refer to it as a topo map? It's an incomplete map with blank spots on it, just like I said. Obviously you didn't see the connection I was trying to make -- that modern maps don't have those huge blank spots on them because the areas have been explored/charted. I'm not sure why anyone would believe I think the only way to explore/chart an area is on foot, walking over every square inch. I certainly haven't argued that.

RayG

[Drew]

There are scat samples, hair samples that are alleged to be sasquatch trace evidence, which don't match any local fauna, but which have nothing to be conclusively compared to.

Right. No evidence of Bigfoot.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Right. No evidence of Bigfoot.

Wrong, there is evidence of Bigfoot but there is no subject on file to compare the current evidence with samples from said subject. Chris B.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 30 September 2010 - 05:06 PM, said:

There are scat samples, hair samples that are alleged to be sasquatch trace evidence, which don't match any local fauna, but which have nothing to be conclusively compared to.

Right. No evidence of Bigfoot.

Correct, from the perspective of a denialist. From the perspective of a skeptic, there is trace evidence that cannot be matched to known local fauna, and such evidence might be evidence of a sasquatch, and might not. From the perspective of a believer, it is evidence of a sasquatch.

You appear to be a denialist, no?

[Drew]

Correct, from the perspective of a denialist. From the perspective of a skeptic, there is trace evidence that cannot be matched to known local fauna, and such evidence might be evidence of a sasquatch, and might not. From the perspective of a believer, it is evidence of a sasquatch.

You appear to be a denialist, no?

Not at all. From the perspective of logic, there is no reliable Bigfoot evidence.

From the perspective of a Bigfoot proponent, there is evidence of unknown origin, which equals Bigfoot evidence.

Unfortunately for the Bigfoot proponent, unknown evidence DOES NOT equal possible Bigfoot evidence, it simply equals unknown evidence.

A denialist is someone who denies reality to avoid an uncomfortable truth. I am comfortable with the truth, whether it turns out to be that Bigfoot exists, or Bigfoot does not exist. Can you say the same about yourself?