Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Are you saying that my topics aren't logical? All the evidence that shows that the creature is non-physical is the answer to your question. Midnight Owl made a very good point.Most people are comfortable with bigfoot being just an undiscovered ape instead being something that is unknown.I don't think people can handle the truth.The same is true when it comes to the ufo phenomenon.People don't want believe that aliens are anything but beings from distant galaxies. Well to answer your question, I do think your argument is not logical thinking based on the evidence of reports and what we know of the natural world we live in.. ( That doesn't mean you are wrong) I just feel it makes more sence to expect that BF would fit into the world as we know it, than to expect that they are Paranormal creatures. You could very well be right, because we don't really know for sure.I would be very comfortable to learn that BF is another Human or an advanced Ape, I would be considerably less comfortable to learn that BF can travel between dimentions and or is part allien, I think I might have trouble sleeping at night were that found to be true. As far as the alliens go, I have lots of trouble with the thought of them being or coming from such a long distance to our planet. It seems such an unlikley possibility even with the idea of worm holes. I find it much more possible that they live right here on earth, possibly in the oceans. In either case I am convinced that Bigfoot and alliens both exist as I assume you do also. So we do have some ideas in common. I will tell you one thing, If they ever prove that you were right on the Paranormal existance of Bigfoot, I will hold your banner high and proudly proclaim how dispite the objections, you stuck to your guns and your beliefs. I will be the president of the Para ape fan club. But I do hope the flesh and blood theory wins out. I will sleep better at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 That's a lot of land to cover looking for dung though which is visible only for a short period since it is broken down by insects and the elements, and we can't find their dead bodies or bones which are much larger than dung piles too so it's not much of a factor to me not finding more of their dung. I know this line of inquiry is a bit off topic, but... The question of dung was brought up because a world class researcher of gorillas wondered why we don't find more of it on sasquatch trails. He was trying to extrapolate what we understand about known apes and apply it to the sasquatch question. I don't fault him for it; I think it's reasonable not to allow sasquatch theory to propose the animal as some sort of across-the-board exception to everything we know about ape life and behavior. We cannot call out sasquatch as an ape and then declare that most things about it are not analogous to other apes. You do make a good point if we take Meldrum's model. He thinks there are relatively few Bigfoot in North America and they are nomadic, with thousands of miles migrated by individual sasquatch. On the other hand, if we have habituation sites as some people claim, and the Erickson Project claims to have evidence of, then we should have strong (and strong smelling) evidence in the volume of dung that necessarily exists, if we are dealing with apes. If we are dealing with apes, and no one is stumbling all over the stuff in the EP's Kentucky site, then the EP has been fooled. Unless, of course, we make sasquatch an exception to the rule (the rule being know ape behavior). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Simple answer would be that BF bury there doodie ~ Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Simple answer would be that BF bury there doodie ~ Tim You have a way with words Snake Edited September 7, 2011 by wild eyed willy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Good thing it's a PG forum cause otherwise i would be like a kaleidoscope of colorful words and phrases Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 LOL I am back up to date (my Modem died and I had to organise another one) one small thing which seems to be a little misunderstood about Australian animals. I don't subscribe to a Marsupial Bigfoot, Yowie Maybe, but I am not convinced entirely. But to set the record a little clearer Marsupial :- main Characteristic, Pouch. Notable examples Kangarooand Koala Monotreme:- main Characteristic, Lays eggs. Notable examples Platypusand Echidna Both are mammals So the idea of A Bigfoot being a Marsupial would not infer eggs, but would infer a Pouch to carry its Young. This though (to me, because of relative body type descriptions) would mean that his Ancestor would be the Diprotodonand closest known relative would be the Wombat though that would help Yowie explanations I'm not so sure about Bigfoot. With regards to Marsupials you guys over there have your Opossum so though there is Marsupials over there they have come up through South America Via the Panama Isthmus. As a side note Marsupials tend to be very robust with your Opossum being resistant to diseases such as Rabies and Immune to Rattlesnakes, Cottonmouths and other Pit vipers. Koalas also have a very particular diet (Eucalyptus leaves) which are generally toxic in large doses in other animals but they can determine by smell whether the Edible season for that particular variety has past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habber Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Are you saying that my topics aren't logical? All the evidence that shows that the creature is non-physical is the answer to your question. Midnight Owl made a very good point.Most people are comfortable with bigfoot being just an undiscovered ape instead being something that is unknown.I don't think people can handle the truth.The same is true when it comes to the ufo phenomenon.People don't want believe that aliens are anything but beings from distant galaxies. fantasic claims and the needed evidence.............................. proof if you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Simple answer would be that BF bury there doodie ~ Tim Simple yes, but not necessarily accurate judging from bf dung being found on top of the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 It might be that some of them bury and some don't. This could depend on thier personal preferance or perhaps a very busy schedule. ( you know people to meet places to go). Or more simply sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest texansquatchhunter13 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Well, I wouldn't jump to conclusions, but their have been a sort of alien species that people have claimed to be abducted by that were described as looking like bigfoot. And aren't we apes too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Give para ape a minute to find this thread and you will have your answer! Amen to that dxtsniper! I needed something to laugh about tonight, so I sincerely thank you for your post. .and you are absolutely "right" on the money.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Simple yes, but not necessarily accurate judging from bf dung being found on top of the ground. Hi There is real honest to goodness scientifically confirmed BF Poop ? Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) It might be that some of them bury and some don't. That could be true, even with the same individual also. I know my cat can't make up his mind if he wants to bury his or not since he does both. Usually not....the lazy bum. Hi There is real honest to goodness scientifically confirmed BF Poop ? Tim No. From what I've seen only a couple skat samples analyzed and found to be from a unknown primate. Edited September 8, 2011 by Biggie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 A possible solution to absence of dung. Read on empty stomach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Hi Huh ! i read that whole thing while eating a bowl of chocolate chip vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup on top and nothing even happened Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts