Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 ^I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The eyewitnesses, hairs, tracks that withstand technical analysis, body part impressions, etc are all part of more than ample proof of a currently extant uncatalogued higher primate living in the N American contintent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) ^^^ It would be awesome if that were fact but unfortunately it is only your opinion! Edited May 3, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Withstands who's technical analysis? ParaApe's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Here's a question for all you folks that are smarter than me..... ok that's pretty much all of you..... Why would some teeth and jaw fragments be so readily accepted as to categorize a new species of giant ape, gigantopithecus blacki, but multiple DNA samples from different parts of the country and photographic and video evidence, to support the DNA results as being an unrecognized primate (sasquatch) wouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 One is presumed extinct, the other presumed (by most) to not exist. That, and I don't know of any Giganto forums where such hot debates exist. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't be so sure! This may be a giganto forum yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The eyewitnesses, hairs, tracks that withstand technical analysis, body part impressions, etc are all part of more than ample proof of a currently extant uncatalogued higher primate living in the N American contintent. Bullroar. If they were, we'd have a specimen tag in a museum with a Latin binomial that is the subject of a scientific paper describing the species we know as "bigfoot." These people recognize no such animal, and your strident assertions that we have ample evidence to prove the existence of bigfoot are unadulterated poppycock. I find it distasteful and exceedingly irresponsible of you to attempt to spread such misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) ^I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The eyewitnesses, hairs, tracks that withstand technical analysis, body part impressions, etc are all part of more than ample proof of a currently extant uncatalogued higher primate living in the N American contintent. It's my opinion that that's your opinion! But in all seriousness, I think I didn't explain it well enough. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you about whether or not the evidence for bigfoot is enough for us/science/everyone to conclude bigfoot exists -- I've read enough on here to know that would be a losing endeavor. (I would hazard to guess you've never lost an argument in your life.) All I'm saying is that I consistently see you on these boards proclaiming that skeptics offer no scientific counter evidence to the pro-bigfoot evidence, and that's simply false. There IS evidence against the existence of bigfoot. You've made it perfectly clear that you do not think this evidence is strong enough to override pro-bigfoot evidence -- that's fine, I don't even necessarily disagree with you! But there IS evidence against the existence of bigfoot. I'm just trying to point out that it's not as if "science" is sitting here saying, "We don't believe bigfoot exists because... well... just because." There are (so far (should I bold this just to be sure you see it?)) biological and zoological and ecological rationale for very smart, experienced, learned people to say, "Realistically, bigfoot likely does not exist." Just as you have determined the tracks, casts, sightings, etc override any other evidence, it should not surprise you that others choose to weigh the evidence differently. Edited May 3, 2012 by PJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 ^^^ Mulder, I don't disagree that there IS evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot. But IMHO your counter-argument to "skeptics" is inadequate. The science "put on the line" is the fact that there is no known bigfoot species that has ever been proven to exist, and anything similar to it (great apes, gorillas, monkeys, neanderthals, whatever) either is not known to live anywhere in North America or a climate like North America's, or is currently extinct. Quite simply, the counter-argument to your evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot is essentially, "Everything we know about any animal similar to 'bigfoot' implies it could not exist in the US, and if somehow it was, it would have to be much more visible than it allegedly is." Many many people's life work centers around developing this kind of knowledge of the animal kingdom. They MIGHT be wrong about bigfoot not existing. But to claim there's no evidence counter to the evidence of bigfoot proponents is silly. post plussed by a bigfoot proponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Here is something that occurs to me vis a vis the whole Gigantopithacus notion: I have heard one particular damning critique over and over from some skeptics (and it's not without merit): If Bigfoot were real, we'd have some evidence of him in the fossil record. Well, until fairly recently, we didn't know about Gigantopithicus, and yet, from only, what, a tooth? A small jaw fragment? We've typed an entirely new species of ancient hominid. Granted, we don't know much about it from those fragments. But here was what surely must have been a rather large population over time of an enormous hominid ancestor, and all we've ever found is a single tooth and jaw fragment...which by the way, wasn't it found in a Chinese Apocothary and not by paleontologists? So, I call hoax! How could an entire species have been extant for a really long period of time, and we've only found a single tooth? Not possible. /over simplistic tounge-in-cheekness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Dannggggg... I can barely see the Ketchum thread through the fur flying. I am hopeful that the results of the Ketchum study will get the subject moving forward in a more positive way. IF it is not published, or found out to be incorrect, well then what a shot in the face to proponents, perhaps then we can discuss the global phenomenon of people hoaxing worldwide. IF it is published, and has some creedence, well then, we can seriously discuss exactly HOW a creature like this could evade for so long. Good stuff here...good stuff. @PJam: In your response above, you list some great apes, then a comment about folks studying 'similar' creatures like bigfoot. I'm curious, do you feel that the great apres are 'similar' to BF? Or do you feel that humans would be 'similar' to BF? It took modern humans (modern = advanced technologically/academically) many years to discover certain tribes - and these tribes were stationary (for the most part, not nearly as nomadic as BF is claimed to be) and used tools, fire, built shelter. It is STILL taking modern humans many years to discover new languages - and these languages are spoken by people that are much more 'civilized'. I see your point (and maybe that's another question - why does NA not have any monkeys/primates - another exception to the rule), but I also see a wealth of possible evidence to suggest a BF. Thoughts on all that?? (Sorry for the rambling - but I was born as such) Edited May 3, 2012 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Cotter, I believe the Ketchum study results will be the beginning of a "new" discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Once that's done, I will join a Lochness Monster forum and start arguing that. Lots of cryptids out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 ^ Ha! I was just wondering where everyone would go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 ^I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The eyewitnesses, hairs, tracks that withstand technical analysis, body part impressions, etc are all part of more than ample proof of a currently extant uncatalogued higher primate living in the N American contintent. In your opinion. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts