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

[Guest Blackdog]

What about the other BFF members encounters in other parts of the continent other than the PNW and Kiamachis?

I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just curious what you think of those members stories?

[Huntster]

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.

Your assumption would be incorrect. I AM a skeptic, but I am NOT a denialist. There is a huge difference, but it appears few can see that difference.

You're most obviously the biggest skeptic on the board.

I consider myself the wisest skeptic on the board, but since I'm over 6' tall and nearly 270 lbs, I might even be the biggest.

Or maybe you do believe in bigfoot and misconstrue Skeptics, Skepticism and Skeptical thought repeatedly and with impunity.

Perhaps, but I don't believe that. His words appear quite easy to understand. I don't know how my words can misconstrue his.

What if my "Skeptic" reply doesn't match yours, is it still an illustration of complete failure?

Might. Give us those words and let's see.

[Huntster]

What about the other BFF members encounters in other parts of the continent other than the PNW and Kiamachis?

I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just curious what you think of those members stories?

I think they're remotely possible. It depends on the region, habitat, and how cut off it is from possible migration routes. But, in all honesty, even if there were remnant sasquatch populations there, I wouldn't bother looking for them there until after discovery, when scientists would finally get with it, get funding, and get out there looking.

As a big game hunter, I don't bother hunting moose in areas of low moose densities unless I can't afford to go to the areas with high densities. Sorry, but I'm not stupid. I hunt in areas where the success rate is high.

[Guest Blackdog]

Thanks!

[Guest]

@TooRisky: To my eyes, everyone has been pretty above board on this thread. Rock's response at the beginning was a little touchy but I haven't seen anything that warrants the negative tone you're taking towards "the skeptics". Also, Kerchak is/was on your side and was asking a friendly question. You might want to slow down a little bit while you're reading/replying.

And the thread title has been debated about and you appear to want it changed. Do you want the topic title changed? And if so, to what specifically? I'd be happy to do that and clear up your original intentions in the opening post (OP).

I have a question to those far more knowledgeable than me: In most forests (even ones without high amounts of rainfall) don't bodies disappear pretty rapidly? And aren't bones rarely fossilized? I'm just curious as to how many *known* animals (their bodies or their fossils) have been simply found by people in the woods. Not killed by guns or cars. Just found naturally, as bigfoot proponents claim bigfoot bodies are. I'm just wondering what the relative ratios are between known animal population and known animal fossils/corpses or if such data exists. Thanks!

[Guest alex]

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.

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

That does not address my arguement at all, you dodged it, because you know you can not explain the lack of remains of Gigantopithecus

[Guest]

... I AM a skeptic, but I am NOT a denialist. There is a huge difference, but it appears few can see that difference.

I consider myself the wisest skeptic on the board, but since I'm over 6' tall and nearly 270 lbs, I might even be the biggest.

...

Then why do you write things like this,"(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 RayG]

That does not address my arguement at all, you dodged it, because you know you can not explain the lack of remains of Gigantopithecus

I dodged nothing. The reason you don't stumble across a Giganto body while out strolling in the woods, is because they went extinct at least 300,000 years ago. Unless you've mastered time-travel that is. I even gave you the definition of extinct. You did read that part, right?

I have to ask if you're really being serious if you think we should be finding Giganto bodies, even though they've been extinct for 300,000 years or more. Maybe you need to clearly define the terms of your argument.

RayG

[Guest]

"I consider myself the wisest skeptic on the board, but since I'm over 6' tall and nearly 270 lbs, I might even be the biggest"

Close.

NS

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 23 September 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

... I AM a skeptic, but I am NOT a denialist. There is a huge difference, but it appears few can see that difference.

I consider myself the wisest skeptic on the board, but since I'm over 6' tall and nearly 270 lbs, I might even be the biggest.

Then why do you write things like this,"(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.)"

Because the mods won't let me use the more appropriate word "denialist" instead of "skeptic".

[Huntster]

"I consider myself the wisest skeptic on the board, but since I'm over 6' tall and nearly 270 lbs, I might even be the biggest"

Close.

NS

Actually, I knew there were bigger guys on the board. I was just playing with words..............

[Guest]

Huh, I didn't realize denialist was inappropriate. Based on what you're saying, you're mis-using the word skeptic when you really mean denialist.

[Guest RioBravo]

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

Whoa, wait a second. Did I miss something, or is this a sarcastic statement?

[Guest]

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.

Kerchak, I knew what you were saying. If you go to places that have water (lakes, rivers, reservoirs) and are accessable by a motor vehicle, the likelihood of seeing people increases dramatically especially when the weather is warmer and on weekends and holidays. Deer season, at least around here, changes everything. But still, on Monday I spent the whole (long) day driving and hiking on the eastern side of the El Dorado National Forest here in N. CA preparing a job bid and only saw one hunter. When you get to large tracts of private commercial timber land the roads are usually gated so except for the edges of these properties, you usually only see people who are conducting business. Hope that helps.

[Guest Kerchak]

Norcallogger,

Yes that did help and it's interesting. If I may ask another question, on Monday when you went driving and hiking did you stick to a hiking trail or did you take off cross country off the beaten track? If so how far did you penetrate into the deep bush away from the trail? Thanks.