Bigfoot yay or nay ?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Bigfoot has more believers because the the evidence against his existence is harder for some to understand. Confusion often times breed contempt.

Besides coming off all arrogant. You're completely wrong about that one Pal.

You are telling me that the evidence against the existence of Bigfoot isn't harder for some to understand than the evidence against the existence of Santa is?

Let me make sure we both understand what it is you are saying.

You are saying that not believing someone lives at the North Pole and flies around on a magic sleigh is harder to understand than the evolutionary aspects of old world versus new world primates, and the difficulties present in the theory that a previously unknown species of tailless hominid is indigenous to North America?

Are you really saying that?

Originally posted by crazyeddie68
I've been thinking about the agrument some folks brought up about why no remains have been found of a dead bigfoot.I have been a hunter for well over 25 years,and its very,VERY rare I come across any remains of any animal.If you think about it,there are millions of whitetail deer where I live.While I see plenty of road kill,I have never run across a dead deer in the woods.So what if there are only 2 or 3 thousand sasquatch in North America?Finding a dead one would be like finding a needle in a haystack.Just my opinion,of course. BTW,I'm a yea.

I used to be in that "they should have found a dead one" crowd. Then I saw a time lapse of a dead deer. Now I don't ask that question anymore. In a matter of a couple weeks, the forest had pretty much reclaimed the entire deer, between the animals, fungi, and other matter. I was amazed at how quickly it disappeared.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee


Paul Bunyon forensic evidence is vast... He is touted from California to Maine.

really? that vast hunh?

who made his clothes and whatever happened to the blue ox? those foot prints would've been easy to find

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


No, I'm telling you that people who believe in bigfoot, have far better reasons
than not being able to understand the evidence against his existence.
When you've seen something with your own eyes do you then go searching
for evidence ? Tell ya something about evidence you don't seem to take into
account very much at all.

Evidence can lie.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
you said that was what you were saying so I directed it at that. why waste time on the rest when it's silly? Tell me how you know everything about every kind of hominoid species around the world first and then I'll rip apart the rest of your baloney.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

No, I'm telling you that people who believe in bigfoot, have far better reasons
than not being able to understand the evidence against his existence.
When you've seen something with your own eyes do you then go searching
for evidence ? Tell ya something about evidence you don't seem to take into
account very much at all.

Evidence can lie.

edit on 1-7-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Evidence can lie? That is the approach you want to take in support of Bigfoot?

Interesting approach.

So, without citing any evidence... what far better reasons might someone have to believe in Bigfoot?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

you said that was what you were saying so I directed it at that. why waste time on the rest when it's silly? Tell me how you know everything about every kind of hominoid species around the world first and then I'll rip apart the rest of your baloney.

I read. A lot. I read about primates a lot. So, now that I have answered your question, please proceed to rip apart the rest of my baloney.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee


Paul Bunyon forensic evidence is vast... He is touted from California to Maine.

really? that vast hunh?

who made his clothes and whatever happened to the blue ox? those foot prints would've been easy to find

LOL

You are literally saying that because we don't have a body for the blue ox.. and that his big feet should be easily tracked, that he isn't real!

You are making my point for me.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


I've hunted for many years and finding skeletal remains of animals is not at all uncommon. How fast the animal disappears after death depends on the environment. In the desert it could be decades.

Also, no fossilized remains of a Bigfoot has ever been found. For an animal supposedly so spread out across the globe, you have to seriously question its existence.

reply to post by anton74


And how many fossils of chimps, oraguatangs, and other known primates have been found? You can look it up. I'll wait.

hint: fossils are only created in very specific circumstances.

Originally posted by Malynn
reply to post by anton74

 

And how many fossils of chimps, oraguatangs, and other known primates have been found? You can look it up. I'll wait.

hint: fossils are only created in very specific circumstances.

edit on 7/1/13 by Malynn because: (no reason given)

You are talking about rain forests. Bigfoot doesn't just live in rainforests. Besides, we have found fossils of those others.Primates

Hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

well then how about you tell me what you read that convinced you you could prove a negative statement just by saying they can't exist and maybe I'll take you a little more seriously?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well then how about you tell me what you read that convinced you you could prove a negative statement just by saying they can't exist and maybe I'll take you a little more seriously?

I've jumped through enough of your hoops. How about you start attacking my position instead of me?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
You are literally saying that because we don't have a body for the blue ox.. and that his big feet should be easily tracked, that he isn't real!

You are making my point for me.

you wish

I asked what happened to her and pointed out there have never been any tracks found. We have a lot of bf tracks, hair samples, skull dome cap, hand bones and video. There is plenty of bf evidence not much more than hearsay concerning PB

How about the Patterson film and Bill Munns' examination? Would you like to talk about him proving it is not a costume? or do you want to continue being silly

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well then how about you tell me what you read that convinced you you could prove a negative statement just by saying they can't exist and maybe I'll take you a little more seriously?

I've jumped through enough of your hoops. How about you start attacking my position instead of me?

your position IS you and only what you think is possible or not. You act like you know about every hominoid species on Earth even the ones you say don't exist.

Hoops? why is asking you to use substantial proof considered putting you through hoops (I'm assuming you mean I am being unreasonable)?

Let's talk about the Munns film then or is that too empirical for you?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
You are literally saying that because we don't have a body for the blue ox.. and that his big feet should be easily tracked, that he isn't real!

You are making my point for me.

you wish

I asked what happened to her and pointed out there have never been any tracks found. We have a lot of bf tracks, hair samples, skull dome cap, hand bones and video. There is plenty of bf evidence not much more than hearsay concerning PB

How about the Patterson film and Bill Munns' examination? Would you like to talk about him proving it is not a costume? or do you want to continue being silly

As much as I want BF to be real, none of that evidence has been proven to be conclusive.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
You are literally saying that because we don't have a body for the blue ox.. and that his big feet should be easily tracked, that he isn't real!

You are making my point for me.

you wish

I asked what happened to her and pointed out there have never been any tracks found. We have a lot of bf tracks, hair samples, skull dome cap, hand bones and video. There is plenty of bf evidence not much more than hearsay concerning PB

How about the Patterson film and Bill Munns' examination? Would you like to talk about him proving it is not a costume? or do you want to continue being silly

There aren't any legitimate hair samples, hand bones, or skull domes of bigfoot in existence, or we would be having a very different conversation. The conversation would be shifting from, does he exist, to why is he so hard to find. I would love to be wrong, if you're able to find come conclusive evidence, please share it.

I cannot discuss the Bill Munns' examination as I am not familiar with it, and I have to be honest with you, I really don't plan on reading a costumer's examination of old grainy video. If you want to give me some of the highlights, I would give it a fair look, but I'm just not that interested, as I said.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well then how about you tell me what you read that convinced you you could prove a negative statement just by saying they can't exist and maybe I'll take you a little more seriously?

I've jumped through enough of your hoops. How about you start attacking my position instead of me?

your position IS you and only what you think is possible or not. You act like you know about every hominoid species on Earth even the ones you say don't exist.

Hoops? why is asking you to use substantial proof considered putting you through hoops (I'm assuming you mean I am being unreasonable)?

Let's talk about the Munns film then or is that too empirical for you?

Here is my position, again, since you are having some trouble separating it from me.

----------------------------

There is only one known species of hominids that can 'survive' in all climates type in the world.

Man.

We are able to survive all climates due to our mastery of technology. We can survive the hottest heats and the coldest colds that this planet's climates have thrown at us. In each of these climate zones we have cultures that have stories of 'wild ape men' that wonder the wilds, just outside of our vision.

For these ape men to be able to be as hearty as humans, they would either need to be..

1. Incredibly physically adaptable, actually the most adaptable mammal on the planet.
2. Capable of using machinery to aid in their survival, of which we have found no evidence.
3. Different species throughout the world, multiple species, none of which have empirical backing.

--------------------------------------------------------

These are my points. These points are not hard to understand, and they are logical conclusions. Is Bigfoot the most adaptable mammal on the planet, does he use tech, or is he actually a they and Bigfoot is actually multiple unknown species?

I believe that it's possible that there could be a large bipedal ape roaming the forests of North America. I've been what you may call a Woodsman most of my life, and I've seen some pretty dense forests. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an Intelligent, bipedal, man-like creature lived in some of them.