Why No Troublemaking Adolescent Squatch?

[JDL]

hmmm, this isn't a personal attack, but why does EVERY SINGLE PERSON who claims habitation say this? It's suspicious, it makes me think that the emperor has no clothes.... Seriously, what do you want us to think? Seems like the situation would be best served by getting some young eager , primatology grad students up there to at least take a look at it...

So you find consistent behavior from multiple witnesses suspicious?

Edited October 27, 2011 by JDL

[Guest Tontar]

1 ) Please work out how to use the quoting feature as that took me far longer to reply than if you would have used it & i'm sure it wasn't easy to read for those reading it too..

2 ) I have no problem with Skeptics, i completely understand the vast majority of their issues with this subject as i have them myself, but i do have a problem with absolute " know it all's " & they way you came across in that exchange Tontar was quite shockingly " know it all " in my opinion.

But, it takes all sorts to make a World i guess..

Sorry to have angered you. You come across as so certain that bigfoot exists, and I ask simply for your evidence and proof, and how that might fit reasonably in with what works typically and normally in the natural world. You say you know what you know, and you come up with scenarios that have virtually no parallel which would support those ideas. Sorry if my questioning upsets you, but I'm still left thinking that your argument lacks reinforcing examples to support it, and ends up as an emotional thing that you have to get overly defensive about. The problem is, if there was enough evidence to support the existence of bigfoot, if it really was a reasonable thing to invest in, the rest of the world would fall in line and support the idea.

Gorillas were known long ago, and were reported long before Europeans trekked into the jungles of Africa to find them. You have to realize that everything works that way too. There was a time when Europeans didn't realize north America existed too, and in the grand scheme of things that wasn't all that long ago either. But this is not the time where trans-oceanic travel was not possible. This is not the time when internal combustion engines had not been invented yet. This is not the time when bicycles were invented. Gorillas were discovered back when people were still using steam engines to get around, if that clarifies the difficulty in not only getting to Africa, but in making it into the deeper interior areas where gorillas dwelled. Just for exercise, can you tell me when the American Bison was "discovered". What about salmon? Or the Apache?

Discovery of new species depends on the ability to explore their habitat. We don't have the same limitations, and I mean "we" in the broader sense of mankind, that we had in the 1800's. We have planes that survey animal populations across the entire nation. We have snowmobiles, dirt bikes, horses, quads, four wheel drives, tractors. We have the ability to scour the country in ways that didn't exist at the time of the gorilla "discovery, so using the idea that the gorilla went undetected for so long is a straw man argument. It did not go undetected. It was not elusive. People had barely started exploring that continent at that time, so of course the gorilla had not been found. But indigenous people knew of them all along, which is where the early reports came from.

Talk to the department of wildlife, who are pretty well prepared to do wildlife surveys. See if they have seen many bigfoots in their census taking projects. When there is so little evidence to support the existence of an unknown creature, the burden of proof lies on those who insist it exists. If they exist, find a way to prove it other than with an argument. Throw some logical reasons how and why an 8 foot tall, 500 pound species, could exist for so long and not be documented. Nothing terrestrial that big has avoided detection and then been discovered in the past hundred years, has it?

[Guest StankApe]

So you find consistent behavior from multiple witnesses suspicious?

Yes i do. I find it more than suspicious i find it potentially irrationally dishonest... call me a jerk or wtvr, but honestly, I don't understand how anyone can claim habituation and then present no evidence.... It's like me saying I have an alien body in my back yard but nobody can see it. What would your response be?

[Guest tirademan]

Talk to the department of wildlife, who are pretty well prepared to do wildlife surveys. See if they have seen many bigfoots in their census taking projects.

Tontar, methinks you haven't read up on sasquatch history...too bad my old thread is gone. Here's a nugget for you, one of many...Forest Worker!

tirademan

[BobbyO]

Sorry to have angered you. You come across as so certain that bigfoot exists, and I ask simply for your evidence and proof, and how that might fit reasonably in with what works typically and normally in the natural world. You say you know what you know, and you come up with scenarios that have virtually no parallel which would support those ideas. Sorry if my questioning upsets you,

I have no problem with questioning, that doesn't upset me at all nor did your questions, it's just like i said i don't like " know it all's " & that is exactly how you come over, you think you know it all when in the grand scheme of things, you don't, clearly..

but I'm still left thinking that your argument lacks reinforcing examples to support it, and ends up as an emotional thing that you have to get overly defensive about. The problem is, if there was enough evidence to support the existence of bigfoot, if it really was a reasonable thing to invest in, the rest of the world would fall in line and support the idea.

Fine, no problem at all. It won't be the first time you think something that is wrong & i highly doubt it will be the last..

Gorillas were known long ago, and were reported long before Europeans trekked into the jungles of Africa to find them.

& Sasquatches weren't ?? See " Native Americans " then look at the Hiostory Books like you like telling others to, i thinkyou will find that Gorilla's were " discovered " in the 20th Century & there isn't anythign in brackets that says " ( But Gorillas were known long ago ) "..

You have to realize that everything works that way too.

Please stop telling me what i have to believe & now, what i have to realize, thank you.

There was a time when Europeans didn't realize north America existed too, and in the grand scheme of things that wasn't all that long ago either.

And ??

But this is not the time where trans-oceanic travel was not possible. This is not the time when internal combustion engines had not been invented yet. This is not the time when bicycles were invented. Gorillas were discovered back when people were still using steam engines to get around, if that clarifies the difficulty in not only getting to Africa, but in making it into the deeper interior areas where gorillas dwelled. Just for exercise, can you tell me when the American Bison was "discovered". What about salmon? Or the Apache?

No i can't, i haven't a clue..

Discovery of new species depends on the ability to explore their habitat. We don't have the same limitations, and I mean "we" in the broader sense of mankind, that we had in the 1800's. We have planes that survey animal populations across the entire nation. We have snowmobiles, dirt bikes, horses, quads, four wheel drives, tractors. We have the ability to scour the country in ways that didn't exist at the time of the gorilla "discovery, so using the idea that the gorilla went undetected for so long is a straw man argument. It did not go undetected. It was not elusive. People had barely started exploring that continent at that time, so of course the gorilla had not been found. But indigenous people knew of them all along, which is where the early reports came from.

Like those of Native Americans where this Subject is concerned you mean because there's lots & lots & lots & lots of those isn't there ??

Talk to the department of wildlife, who are pretty well prepared to do wildlife surveys. See if they have seen many bigfoots in their census taking projects. When there is so little evidence to support the existence of an unknown creature, the burden of proof lies on those who insist it exists.

& what if those people who insist it exists couldn't give a monkeys one way of the other if people like you thinks it exists or not ?? Because i sure don't !!!!!

If they exist, find a way to prove it other than with an argument.

Why don't you stop people what to do ??

Throw some logical reasons how and why an 8 foot tall, 500 pound species, could exist for so long and not be documented. Nothing terrestrial that big has avoided detection and then been discovered in the past hundred years, has it?

****, you managed to take out the Gorilla as an answer, by 9 Years..

[Guest StankApe]

Bringing up Indian folklore as evidence is like me saying thor is real because my Norwegian ancestors wrote about it.... try and keep it in the realm of the here and now. If you disagree with that, well ... I don't know what to tell you. I want bigfoot to be real too. I think it would be an amazing discovery, but i refuse to buy into malarky because it might make me think it's real. I refuse to take ANY EVIDENCE AT FACE VALUE. I come from astro-physics. I demand provable, verifiable facts before I make a proclamation of truth. Maybe you don't require that, that's your bidness, but don't jump down our throats when we have the gall to question "opinions" passed of as "facts".

[Guest Primate]

There's a difference between descriptions of Gods and descriptions of known species. Native American traditions I'm familier with make this distinction..

[Guest StankApe]

You are picking things apart.... A legend is a legend until proven to be true. To my Norse relatives, Odin and thor were REAL and waiting to accept them in the afterworld when the fell in battle. To the native americans in some places, the "old man of the forest" was real. That doesn't mean he wasn't the boogeyman, invented to keep children in fear of leaving the protected areas of the tribe ( think of M. Night Shymalans The Village).

I just don't think we can accept ANY folklore as being true. We can use at as circumstantial evidence, as something to make us look further into things, but not as "here's proof" type of evidence.

[BobbyO]

Bringing up Indian folklore as evidence is like me saying thor is real because my Norwegian ancestors wrote about it.... try and keep it in the realm of the here and now. If you disagree with that, well ... I don't know what to tell you. I want bigfoot to be real too.

Do you reckon Europeans used to say that about the African Tribes too where the Gorilla was concerned ??

Or can we not use this Gorilla example as it doesn't quite fit in with the argument Tontar is trying to put across & in fact, actually discredits it give the fact that thee Gorilla was only discovered in the 20th Century ??

[Guest rolando]

Why would you say, or think, that humans are naturally afraid of the dark? You know that for certain?.....

My goodness. Tontar, I understand being naturally skeptical especially as it pertains to Bigfoot but, for crying out loud, you are challenging the assertion that children are afraid of the dark.

[Guest Tontar]

Tontar, methinks you haven't read up on sasquatch history...too bad my old thread is gone. Here's a nugget for you, one of many...Forest Worker!

tirademan

Oh yeah, sort of like the dash cam video that's all over the place, where a bigfoot runs across the road. Made big news, for a couple days. Made it onto Finding Bigfoot well after it had been exposed as a hoax, the deputy who made the video no longer employed by the sherif's office and nowhere to be found.

You know, if you believe everything you read... well, maybe you already do. Look up the Yellow Top bigfoot. That was a wonderful project. An artist guy pulled of a nice hoax that got SO many people pulled into it. He manufactured phony newspaper reports, produced them in Photoshop, gave the paper grain, halftone dot photos of (phony) witnesses, made a sketchy video of a bigfoot in the trees, produced a phony interview with a phony witness, and all the while people were clamoring for more information, more detail, enhanced versions of the video, and the guy was rolling on the floor at how gullible people were. As it unfolded over the weeks and months, everything new that he posted was a bit more strange, a bit more bizarre. He got to the point where he could not make the story any sillier, both wondering why people were not getting that it was a joke, and wondering what it would actually take to convince people it was a joke. After a pretty stupid phony phone call interview where "he" and the other witness both revealed that what was strangest to them about this bigfoot was that he was supremely endowed, but also circumcised, the hoaxer seemed to just give up. he couldn't shake he hard core believers, even after a revelation like that. There were apologists that came up with reasons that the bigfoot might look that way, maybe it just looked that way naturally, maybe they have a culture that actually does it to its males, and so on. Short of actually saying "sorry guys, this was all a hoax", he was trying to expose it with increasing silliness, but even that didn't work. Some people will buy anything they read, or see on the internet...

[Guest Tontar]

My goodness. Tontar, I understand being naturally skeptical especially as it pertains to Bigfoot but, for crying out loud, you are challenging the assertion that children are afraid of the dark.

I studied psychology, I have children, I was once a child myself. I explained myself fairly clearly, I thought. I posed a counter question which you have not answered. Can you answer the counter questions? You know, the ones you ignored, like are eagles "afraid" of he dark? Are hawks "afraid" of the dark. Are owls "afraid" of the light, and so on. I'm not so primitive that I lump everything into only three or four tiny discreet little boxes. When you say that you believe that children are naturally afraid of the dark, what evidence do you have that it is fear, or that it is natural, or that it is instinctual, or that it is not simply avoiding an environment which is difficult to explore because the senses don't work well in it? Do you think that children are naturally afraid of falling? You ever see a baby on a glass table?

I try not to make blanket statements that "this is the way that it is, period". When I se people making such statements without substance to back it up, I question further. You made such statements, I questioned them, and you provided no answers. I could assume that you are just blowing smoke out your behind, repeating things that you have heard and taken as truth, or I could assume you know a lot more but have just not explained it well enough. But when asked to clarify why you make claims, and the response is not an answer, but a look of surprise, what am I to assume? If you can't answer it, just say so.

[indiefoot]

Yes i do. I find it more than suspicious i find it potentially irrationally dishonest... call me a jerk or wtvr, but honestly, I don't understand how anyone can claim habituation and then present no evidence.... It's like me saying I have an alien body in my back yard but nobody can see it. What would your response be?

Would it make a difference if the alien was alive and you felt protective of them? Or would you turn them over to science to be poked and prodded, sliced and diced.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

What kind of Alien are we talking about, Sweet ole ET or that drippy sticky horse looking Xenomorph thing ~

Tim

[Guest Tontar]

Do you reckon Europeans used to say that about the African Tribes too where the Gorilla was concerned ??

Or can we not use this Gorilla example as it doesn't quite fit in with the argument Tontar is trying to put across & in fact, actually discredits it give the fact that thee Gorilla was only discovered in the 20th Century ??

I realize this question was not for me, and you don't want to hear from me again, but you characterize what I am attempting to say so I will respond to it. The gorilla example is only valid because Europeans had not started exploring the vast continent of Africa to any great degree, particularly the jungles and mountains where resources had not yet been discovered. You frame the fact that gorillas were not discovered as if they were successfully eluding discovery, when in fact they were not. They were there all along, just waiting to be discovered. Europeans just weren't going there. It's like saying oh my gosh, I just discovered that Penney's sells Nike shoes! How in the world did Nike shoes go undiscovered at Penney's for all these years? well, I don't shop at Penney's, so was it the Nike shoes that were evading my searching, or more like me just not looking where I would easily have found them?

We are not talking about an unexplored continent in the pre-internal combustion engine era here. There's an incredible difference between then and now, there and here. North America is not an unexplored continent. We are not restricted to traveling by foot, carriage, horse, bicycle, or steam powered vehicles. We are not only extremely mobile, we are technologically advanced far beyond where we were (okay, beyond where "they" were) back in 1847 when the gorilla first made its debut to Europeans. That's 164 years ago! In barely explored and barely colonized Africa! The comparison of 1847 culture and technology, and barely explored Africa with 2011 North America is a hardly defensible debate point. People have infrared cameras and scopes. People have planes and helicopters. People have ORV's of all makes, all sizes. While the world was a lot more mysterious back when we had limited ability to explore it, it's getting a lot less mysterious when people have so much, and such easy access to the nooks and crannies that in past eras were only explorable in people's imaginations.

Oh, and while it might be a small point, the gorilla was actually discovered in the 19th century. The gorilla was "discovered" in 1847, while the 20th century began on January 1, 1901. So it was a full half century BEFORE the 20th century. Sorry! :-)