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

[Guest alex]

Rayg, can you explain why 1000's of 10ft ape's living in a fossilization haven In china less than 300,000 years ago, have only been represented by a jaw and a few teeth? Where are the truck loads of bodies of Gigantopithecus, a creature which died in an area good for bone preservation?

[Guest Kerchak]

Norcallogger and Too Risky,

Thank you for your attempts to answer my ponderings (which is all they were).

Next time I ponder how many humans are in such an area I will be much more prepared for a grilling on whether I know how to build a logging road or not.

Good thing I didn't mention anything about the sky otherwise somebody will probably have demanded to know if I can build a plane.

[Guest TooRisky]

Norcallogger and Too Risky,

Thank you for your attempts to answer my ponderings (which is all they were).

Next time I ponder how many humans are in such an area I will be much more prepared for a grilling on whether I know how to build a logging road or not.

Good thing I didn't mention anything about the sky otherwise somebody will probably have demanded to know if I can build a plane.

HUH.... What are you talking about... Sky / planes... BF / roads...

[Guest TooRisky]

Beautiful.

I wonder just how many people go traipsing through that forest far from trails?

Every single mile is explored and traipsed over?

Too Risky,

Can you hazard even a rough guess at how many humans you think were possibly in the area your camera viewfinder covered?

ahhh I found you.... I hazard to rough guess 0... this is my answer to your question... 0 or zero

But you are to come back with... say it... "how do I know" ???... I answer I don't, Do you...???

And you answer "that is question, how can you be sure "

And I answer "I cant"

Then you say "Well how can you make such a statement"

And I say "Because I am There"

And you banter with "Are you really there"

And I counter why "I think so"

but you feel empowered now and ask "You think so... are you even real"

And I look about my reality and state "I am not sure" and I question if I am... So I go into a pre-natal position and go to my happy place.... NOT!!!!!!!

Stop the psycho babble with me... Cause it just bores me...

[Guest]

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.

RayG

Actually, the Minnesota Iceman was examined and describe in a scientific paper published in a European Journal. It's never been imported or translated into English, but the paper exists.

[Guest Kerchak]

HUH.... What are you talking about... Sky / planes... BF / roads...

I was refering to RockinKT's sarcasm and attempt to belittle me.

I asked a question.

I'm on YOUR side.

Please read the whole thread again.

ahhh I found you.... I hazard to rough guess 0... this is my answer to your question... 0 or zero

Thanks.

But you are to come back with... say it... "how do I know" ???... I answer I don't, Do you...???

And you answer "that is question, how can you be sure "

And I answer "I cant"

Then you say "Well how can you make such a statement"

And I say "Because I am There"

And you banter with "Are you really there"

And I counter why "I think so"

but you feel empowered now and ask "You think so... are you even real"

And I look about my reality and state "I am not sure" and I question if I am... So I go into a pre-natal position and go to my happy place.... NOT!!!!!!!

Stop the psycho babble with me... Cause it just bores me...

Again, please read the thread properly and please read my posts properly.

I actually agree that there isn't going to be many people in the area your viewfinder covered. I would not even argue your zero figure.

I'm actually questioning the folks who claim every mile is explored and known.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest RayG]

Rayg, can you explain why 1000's of 10ft ape's living in a fossilization haven In china less than 300,000 years ago, have only been represented by a jaw and a few teeth? Where are the truck loads of bodies of Gigantopithecus, a creature which died in an area good for bone preservation?

I can refer you to a dictionary, will that do?

ex·tinct

   /ɪkˈstɪŋkt/ Show Spelled[ik-stingkt] Show IPA

–adjective

1. no longer in existence; that has ended or died out: an extinct species of fish.

2. no longer in use; obsolete: an extinct custom.

3. extinguished; quenched; not burning.

4. having ceased eruption; no longer active: an extinct volcano.

Actually, the Minnesota Iceman was examined and describe in a scientific paper published in a European Journal. It's never been imported or translated into English, but the paper exists.

Considering the scientists who 'examined' the MI didn't actually get to touch, feel, prod, or poke the body, and could only look at it though the ice, I have some paper in my bathroom that's just as valuable.

RayG

[Guest]

1) Sir, do you believe at all that sasquatches exist?

No.

2) Sir, either way, do you believe that the Great Plains would be logical habitat for such a creature?

No.

3) Sir, if they possibly exist, would you say that the Pacific Northwest, or even other areas with high precipitation and dense forest, would be a more likely habitat for such creatures?

Yes.

4) Sir, are you aware that the report density/human population ratio of the PNW and the Great Plains clearly show an exponentially greater sighting/report density in the PNW?

Yes.

Because not a single "sighting" in Glickman's or anyone else's analysis stemmed from an encounter with an actual sasquatch, however, I regard such reports as merely demonstrating regional variability in the familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology. In the case of the PNW, the rugged and beautiful landscapes of ranges like the Cascades further reinforce the mythology by creating the impression of terrain within which it would be difficult to confirm the presence of a population of intelligent creatures that did not wish to be found.

Here's a question for you Huntster (or anyone else who'd like to chime in):

Do you think there is a population of bigfoots in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area?

Oh, and here's one for Mulder:

The Minnesota Iceman? Really??

[Guest]

Because not a single "sighting" in Glickman's or anyone else's analysis stemmed from an encounter with an actual sasquatch,

In your opinion.

Do you think there is a population of bigfoots in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area?

I am assuming here that you are sitting on some report of a sas sighting in an unlikely location and using that as the focus of another run at the "we can't trust the reports" routine.

There are plenty of parts of Ok that are NOT "metropolitan", so any anomalous sighting deep inside a heavily urbanized area is not relevant.

Oh, and here's one for Mulder:

The Minnesota Iceman? Really??

The actual, original Iceman, yes. Not the mockups and copies that seem to have sprang up here and there.

It was examined by a scientist from Europe who wrote up his findings for a northern European journal. This was documented in one of Coleman's books.

[Guest Blackdog]

Are you talking about the Minnesota Iceman that was found encased in an iceberg or the Minnesota Iceman that Frank Hansen shot while deer hunting in northern Minnesota?

Edited September 23, 2010 by Blackdog

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 22 September 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

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?

And your guess is, quite literally, is as good as mine. In fact, it's identical.

[Huntster]

if you stick to facts, and present a valid argument, I'll do my best to 'get it'.

Well, then, it appears to me that the facts are few and simple:

1) The finding of dead bodies is directly proportional to the number of dead bodies to be found

2) Millions of dead bodies increases the odds of finding one over no dead bodies at all

3) Did you "get that"?

(Skeptic reply: "Yeah, that means that there are no dead bodies", because the skeptic ignores all the evidence that there may be very, very few dead bodies out there to find. He only sees "none". If that isn't an illustration of complete failure, I don't know what is.)

[Guest]

Huntster, you are so good at presenting the skeptical side of arguments that I have to assume you don't believe in bigfoot at all. You're most obviously the biggest skeptic on the board. Or maybe you do believe in bigfoot and misconstrue Skeptics, Skepticism and Skeptical thought repeatedly and with impunity. What if my "Skeptic" reply doesn't match yours, is it still an illustration of complete failure? Your points, numbered one and two are examples of skepticism.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 22 September 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

1) Sir, do you believe at all that sasquatches exist?

No.

Huntster, on 22 September 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

2) Sir, either way, do you believe that the Great Plains would be logical habitat for such a creature?

No.

Huntster, on 22 September 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

3) Sir, if they possibly exist, would you say that the Pacific Northwest, or even other areas with high precipitation and dense forest, would be a more likely habitat for such creatures?

Yes.

Huntster, on 22 September 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

4) Sir, are you aware that the report density/human population ratio of the PNW and the Great Plains clearly show an exponentially greater sighting/report density in the PNW?

Yes.

Thank you for that, Professor. Can we now get beyond the bigfeet waltzing in the prairies and discuss the phenomenon with intellectual integrity?

Because not a single "sighting" in Glickman's or anyone else's analysis stemmed from an encounter with an actual sasquatch, however, I regard such reports as merely demonstrating regional variability in the familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology. In the case of the PNW, the rugged and beautiful landscapes of ranges like the Cascades further reinforce the mythology by creating the impression of terrain within which it would be difficult to confirm the presence of a population of intelligent creatures that did not wish to be found.

Here's a question for you Huntster (or anyone else who'd like to chime in):

Do you think there is a population of bigfoots in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area?

No, I do not. Moreover, IF there is a sasquatch population in the Kiamichis, they are a dying population. Yet more, I believe the same for California. It is my belief that sasquatches are rapidly approaching extinction in the United States. I suspect there are still remnant populations in Oregon, and that Washington is the last meaningful population, but it, too, is rapidly going extinct. I believe the last stronghold of these creatures is in British Columbia.

[Huntster]

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for that, Professor. Can we now get beyond the bigfeet waltzing in the prairies and discuss the phenomenon with intellectual integrity?

Here's a question for you Huntster (or anyone else who'd like to chime in):

Do you think there is a population of bigfoots in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area?

No, I do not. Moreover, IF there is a sasquatch population in the Kiamichis, they are a dying population. Yet more, I believe the same for California. It is my belief that sasquatches are rapidly approaching extinction in the United States. I suspect there are still remnant populations in Oregon, and that Washington is the last meaningful population, but it, too, is rapidly going extinct. I believe the last stronghold of these creatures is in British Columbia.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Huntster