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

[Guest]

Proof of bigfoot will be found next month, in October.

[Guest RayG]

I can not speak for others and other areas in the US, but when it comes to one of the best sites that Bigfoot seem to like, it is going to be the Northern Cascades in Washington State... This is an explanation to anyone wondering why we cant just trip upon a body in our every day ventures into the wilds... This is why a body has never been found, and most likely to never be found by just the location of where they live and die... And it is not on roads or picnic areas.

A hiker fell to his death while trying to scale one of the mountains in the Northern Cascades, and his body was then located.

More importantly, your argument is a fallacy to begin with. It lacks a valid premise, and is nothing more than a Post Hoc Fallacy, where you're claiming the result (lack of a bigfoot), has a specific cause (the terrain). As we have no bigfoot body anyway, regardless of the terrain, your argument is meaningless.

RayG

[Huntster]

A hiker fell to his death while trying to scale one of the mountains in the Northern Cascades, and his body was then located.

1) The Arum family knew where and when he was going (which mountain, which side of the mountain, etc)

2) They knew when to look for him (when he failed to return)

3) The article did not state the elevation, but his body may well have been above treeline where the helicopter could easily see it

4) Had he not been dead, they may not have found him, especially if he didn't want to be found

More importantly, your argument is a fallacy to begin with. It lacks a valid premise, and is nothing more than a Post Hoc Fallacy, where you're claiming the result (lack of a bigfoot), has a specific cause (the terrain). As we have no bigfoot body anyway, regardless of the terrain, your argument is meaningless.

Then why did Saskeptic find the need to compare the densely forested PNW with the prairie?

[Guest]

...More importantly, your argument is a fallacy to begin with...

RayG

Yep. Wondered if someone was going to note it.

[Guest RayG]

Then why did Saskeptic find the need to compare the densely forested PNW with the prairie?

Only Saskeptic can confirm, but I'm guessing because one invalid premise is as good as another?

TooRisky, in what terrain HAS a bigfoot body been found?

RayG

[Guest]

It seems though that they new generally where to look for him. Especially since his goal was to climb certain peaks. So, I don't think that counter example really refutes the argument.

Woudn't you agree that the vast ruggedness of the terrain would at least decrease the probability of a rare animals body being found?

Edited September 23, 2010 by orangpendeck

[Guest RayG]

It wasn't a valid argument to begin with.

The probability of finding a bigfoot body seems to be constant no matter what the terrain.

RayG

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Finding a body is not likely. We can't even find that many hominid fossils of known species. I beleive I read something to the order of if all hominid fossils ever found were all brought together, they'd fill up a large table. No surprise Old hairy isn't on file. Chris B. My link

[Guest]

A hiker fell to his death while trying to scale one of the mountains in the Northern Cascades, and his body was then located.

More importantly, your argument is a fallacy to begin with. It lacks a valid premise, and is nothing more than a Post Hoc Fallacy, where you're claiming the result (lack of a bigfoot), has a specific cause (the terrain). As we have no bigfoot body anyway, regardless of the terrain, your argument is meaningless.

RayG

No it's not, because if the terrain were more favorable, the chances of us finding a body would be improved. It's not a guarantee, but it IS a well known fact that the wilderness has a away of "vanishing" things.

[Guest]

It wasn't a valid argument to begin with.

The probability of finding a bigfoot body seems to be constant no matter what the terrain.

RayG

Furthermore, if you insist on follwing this particular path, bodies HAVE been found, even live ones. (Minnesota Iceman, several hunter's stories, "Jacko", et al)

[Guest TooRisky]

OK OK.... Man what can I do to the title and my opening phrase that would make RayG and the rest sleep at night, for I have made my point, and the skeptics have once again shown their true colors... Me, I have the Salmon season coming fast and a lot of logistics to get done for my team of researchers... I will be in the field for 2 weeks in October so lets not leave anyone hanging...

What title and opening phase would the likes of RayG like to see... I will make these oh so life changing adjustments just for you guys so you can get some sleep... Quote this and post it and I will get it done...

Also those who "Get it"... Some times it just isn't worth spending time figuring out why a dog chases his tail... it just is, what it is....

2R

[Guest]

It's not a matter of skeptic or believer and to make that distinction is offensive to both.

[Guest RayG]

No it's not, because if the terrain were more favorable, the chances of us finding a body would be improved.

Yeah, you'd think it should make the discovery more favorable, yet still no bigfoot, so it really doesn't matter.

Furthermore, if you insist on follwing this particular path, bodies HAVE been found, even live ones. (Minnesota Iceman, several hunter's stories, "Jacko", et al)

None of which surrendered a DNA sample, digit, bone, tooth, or any other bodypart that enabled us to identify them, classify them, or add them to the list of recognized species. They're about as useful as coming back from fishing, and then bragging about the one that got away.

Don't worry TooRisky, I sleep just fine. I don't care what you do with the title of the thread, but if you stick to facts, and present a valid argument, I'll do my best to 'get it'.

RayG

[Guest TooRisky]

An other look of the Northern Cascades.. Taking coffee on a ridge just cant get any better than this... You are not to find a body in these woods unless very very very lucky... scouting confirmed an active area... This is the area we found a 21" x 10" print along with others....

http://www.youtube.c...u/1/c6Xtu_-d6w0

2R

Edited September 23, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest TooRisky]

Yeah, you'd think it should make the discovery more favorable, yet still no bigfoot, so it really doesn't matter.

None of which surrendered a DNA sample, digit, bone, tooth, or any other bodypart that enabled us to identify them, classify them, or add them to the list of recognized species. They're about as useful as coming back from fishing, and then bragging about the one that got away.

Don't worry TooRisky, I sleep just fine. I don't care what you do with the title of the thread, but if you stick to facts, and present a valid argument, I'll do my best to 'get it'.

RayG

Well RayG....We are back to square one then, funny how this happens to most conversations concerning BF and well the skeptics.... No body and no costume... I enjoy my time in the woods and the skeptics well... they are skeptics...

Oh BTW we need the new title at least to correct the issue you and some others had with this subject... lets get this corrected before I am off to research...

Ohhh I am sure you have gone to our website www.wasrt.com , we have wrote into our mission statement to educate the general public and want to invite you and yours to come out with us... I cant give any promises other than meeting us and going deep... this invite is open to anyone who would like to come out with us... Contact info is on the web page and is all free, no charge, and no hidden fee's...

2R