Bigfoot

Quarrelling and Gorillas.

In the context you first spoke in, you were implying you were more narrow minded than others, saying that 'even you' were open to it. You're open minded and open to more possibilities, so why is it so startling that 'even you' are open to the idea?

Yes, because you used it as a part of your main argument! If there's an off-topic side discussion, like this, where something's been resolved, like the fact that you were evading the main issues about Bigfoot, then yes, you move on from it. You don't move on from main points, especially when they haven't been resolved. Seriously, how can you expect to say that his avatar makes women look like sluts, not back it up at all, and then expect people to be perfectly alright with you saying that? It's extremely offensive, to both Nikzad and women.

Your point exactly? So you're trying to say that you weren't complaining about it in other threads? If your point is that it doesn't matter whether it's locked or not, why did you make such a big matter about how it was locked?

If you take it literally, then yes, but it was a generalised comment. You knew perfectly well what I meant, so how about replying to my point instead of the technicalities?

If you're able to find an appropriate example, then I'd love to see where I have. Regardless, I do not have to be specifically asked the same questions three times before I reply to it.

What, do you not have the balls to let something go or are you just too proud? Seriously, dude, answer me this... Why are you turning this around back on me exactly?

And yes, I am aware of the irony involved here. The fact remains that you've raised a new point by trying to make it be me who backs out, as though you're trying to show that you have the upper hand. Just to clarify, I said it because you were complaining how you'd forgotten what the issues were by the time you replied to the insults, or something like that, so it was valid advice. This was on the topic of repeatedly bringing up the same point, and it has already been established that the fault lies at your end.

You're playing the victim of people's abuse and the mistreatment of your previous threads.

What makes you say that? Removing exclamation marks does not change what you wrote. You still literally ignored everything and complained how this was happening to you and not others.

Nice poetry there. Too bad it's completely useless. If I've offered to let it go, then how am I being so supposedly intimidating? And that doesn't explain the contradiction. You don't have to, as it's well and truly past now. So long as everyone replies to the main issues, I'm happy.

Firstly, the first 'humans', if you get what I mean, moved away from the forests and jungles once they started walking upright, as it is not as efficient as walking as gorillas and monkeys do when living in forests. Neanderthals, too, didn't live in forests, walked upright, and were relatively tall.

As for gorillas, it's clearly evident that they simply do not move in the same way we do. Yes, they are about as tall as we are, and about as wide as we are tall as well, but they do not walk upright, because they are suited to the forests and jungles that they live in. Now, if you're sticking by the Patterson video as genuine footage of Bigfoot, then you'll notice that he does not move in the same way as gorillas, and actually walks upright, like a human (surprise, surprise). So if the gorillas are evidence that large primates can live in forests, then they also provide proof that Bigfoot does not. By the way it walks, Bigfoot is more suited to more open plains and fields, perhaps light tree coverage, but open spaces none the less, being the type of environments that the first 'humans' inhabited millions of years ago, and the Neanderthals would have also inhabited.

And if you're thinking, 'well we were the ones who drove them back to the forests', then, well, that's incorrect. If we physically drove them back, then it would have been like any other specie, and certainly not a cryptid.

Twenty-two words; Gorillas are anatomically and behaviourally suited to living in the forest, allowing them to grow to such sizes. Bigfoot isn't, so wouldn't.

 

Divergent evolution, evidence and conclusion.

Firstly, and I truly do not mean to offend by saying this, but please know what you're talking about before you use it as a part of your argument. I'm assuming you haven't done much biology at school yet, but feel free to say otherwise. All in all, they wouldn't be similar enough for people in West Albania to say they saw Bigfoot. As for other sightings, like I said, it's like early European settlers believing in the bunyip. It's not at all related to the existence of Bigfoot, despite a parallel being able to be drawn between the two.

Also, where are these other reports coming from exactly?

It is of no greater value. You cannot argue against that. Regardless of how much more 'evidence' there is of aliens than Bigfoot or vice versa, there is no conclusive or genuine evidence of either of their existences. More inconclusive evidence is of no greater value than less inconclusive evidence.

And, as I have said before and have to repeat again seeing as you brought it up, there is no evidence that 'may not' be inconclusive. There has been no genuine evidence of Bigfoot or aliens or anything like that at all. If there had been, then it wouldn't be a cryptid. Any evidence you see of either is either inconclusive or fraudulent. Like GMG said earlier, imagine if this thread was called 'The Giant Squid'. There is conclusive evidence of it, so it is obviously not a cryptid. There is no conclusive evidence of Bigfoot, so it is a cryptid.

No, I can't, but analysts can. Believe it or not, it's not up to the internet whether a video or image is inconclusive or not. Professional analysts look at the material given and decide whether they think it's legitimate or not. Obviously there will be a few who say it is when there's overwhelming evidence that it isn't, and obviously where will be a few who say it isn't when there's overwhelming evidence that it is, but that's life. The fact remains that there is no evidence that implies that it exists, and the scientific community is actually in strong agreement that it does not.

You'll have to clarify what you said about divergent evolution there. I'm not quite following.

A forest is obviously not physically similar to a lake. Don't be an arse. I was saying that a network of lakes is similar to a forest in that it's a wide expanse of the same type of environment and habitat. In short, it's not like Nessy would have been living in just one small lake. It's an expanse that links up to a whole lot of other lakes, just like a forest would link up to a whole lot of other forests.

No, it hasn't been proven to be an illusion. You can't say that something is just because you don't believe in it. As I said before, it has to be analysed by professional analysts. They have been unable to make anything of it one way or the other, as it's a genuine photo (not photoshopped) and there is nothing else to imply that it is or isn't a Martian or whatnot. It is inconclusive, just like the evidence of Bigfoot.

And just because there are videos it doesn't mean that there's a reason to believe in it. The Golden Rod is a perfect example of that. It was simply an illusion caught on several videos, which turned out to be insects flying across the field of view when using a slow shutter speed, or whatever it's called for videos.

As for saying it's been proven to be fake, I never said the video was confirmed as being a fake. I said the original evidence, which got the whole thing going. Seriously, do you find nothing suspicious about the fact that more people saw Bigfoot just after it became famous?

As for the ape suit, you're right, I cannot prove it is one, but you cannot prove it isn't. It's inconclusive and has no weight in the argument of whether Bigfoot exists or not.

And as for the link, it's all on Wikipedia, under Bigfoot.

It is.

As I said, it's all on Wikipedia. Specifically, it's under Bigfoot, in History, After 1958. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#After_1958

It's also stated that the scientific community doesn't believe it to be real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#View_among_the_scientific_community

In fact, that second link brings up a lot of points that I've spoken about earlier.

There's a difference between being angry at someone, which I was at you for ignoring and *****ing, and being overly paranoid, which you were, assuming everything was being said against your name.

Thanks for proving my point. I love how you simply assume that you couldn't have possibly had anything to do with it. I mean, it's not like you completely ignored everything that was said, causing people to get angry, start throwing insults and spam irrelevant junk or anything. Nah, you didn't do anything like that...

It would have been easier if you'd have dropped the first half of the conversation when I'd offered to. If you're having trouble, I hate to say it, but you did sort of bring it on yourself. If youd've stuck to the issues, not ignored all the questions and comments and moaned about how Psi wasn't being flamed, it would have never have gotten this big in the first place.

As for merging the quotes, I try to reply directly to what was said. It makes things much easier when looking back over it. Merging quotes degrades the structure of the discussion, like if I were to quote everything you said, and reply with everything I have to say.

 

Alright, I want to get this junk over with so I can talk about Bigfoot more in detail and not worry about insults, so do not expect long and detailed answers, and don't think I'm ignoring the things you say... I'd reply to everything but then this would go on forever. Like in the movie The Dark Knight, the Joker says, "This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object."

Also, I thought you said to drop it, yet you bring back the topic of Nikzad's old avatar. And stop saying that I evaded the main issues of Bigfoot, because we're talking about it now.

My point is, that it's better to not have a discussion on the thread and having everything intact, than to have a heated debate, have it locked, and the poll removed.

I think now you know how I felt.

Turning this around on me now too huh? You cannot only blame me. I had someone to argue with and that was you. I can let something go. You tell me that if I don't like something to comment and move on, I commented, but what did you turn my comment into? A basis for another small topic.

So you want this to basically be a "first-to-stop-replying-to-a-reply-loses" game. This is exactly what it is right now. You think that I want you to back out, and you want me to back out.

Abuse, no. Mistreatment of threads, yes. Since the blood topic had a way less heated debate than this, I can't see why the blood topic was locked but this hasn't been. Not that I want it to...

It takes the emotions out. If I ask you "Can I please borrow $1? I need it to get on the bus please!" and "Can I please borrow $1??!?!?!?!!?!? I need it to get on the bus please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
What is the obvious choice for a no.

Then let it go. Actually, it's not useless. You want me to back out and I want you to back out. So if I don't have to, then you don't have to either.

And although gorillas do not walk upright, if humans started walking upright due to being out in the open, then another species of primates could also have started to live in the open, learn to walk, either partially or fully upright, and return to the forests.

Like I said earlier, they could have adapted to walking on two feet which would give them a height advantage in a forest or a lightly densed forest. Also, I'll give you a link to a video a bit later so you can see the analysis of the photo as well as many other things.

Well... we did drive all the other animals back... And as soon as you back them into a corner, they have no choice but to go into the human settlements. Like mountain lions that have no place to live so they start going in to the cities.

Yet like you said, the average human height has been increasing slowly. So if your thing about insular dwarfism is correct, then Bigfoot will still be very large, but a bit smaller than earlier recorded. Also, you don't know how nature works so what if it decided that bigger in a forest is better. After all, it can survive longer since it will not have very many predators because of it's size.

 

I might as well make this into two posts as well, each respectively answering yours, ItzaHexGore.

And why wouldn't they be similar? Mind explaining? Also, people have different ways of calling an animal. Sasqutch, Yeti, Bigfoot... Did you know Hyenas are more closely related to cats than dogs? So although a possible Bigfoot descendant is very different, it is still related to it.

I'm pretty sure I read on a website a long while ago about a ton of them, I can't find the website though...

If nothing is fake about a video, then it should be counted as true or else every single video in the whole planet of an animal or something could be considered fake. The only way to prove it true is to find nothing fake about it. Therefore you would be saying that all videos of Bigfoot and every other thing such as a ghost or extraterrestrial life is inconclusive, which is obviously not and very unfair.

And there is no evidence of it being faked besides the "claim" that they faked it. You would rather believe that someone a few decades after the video was taken would come forward to say it was faked is any more believable than the video itself?

The scientific community has to be skeptical. After all, if all the scientists started to believe in everything, they would be spending their time in fake things instead of further real things. If more scientists actually tried to go out and prove all those things, Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, we could finally find the answer to what is real, and what is not. But since most of the scientists are skeptics, they won't have the ambition to put together a proper research team to investigate these things.

Alright, just hold on a bit.

Not really that similar, although both are large areas, a forest has much more access to different resources in its environment than a group of lakes do. Also, you can leave the forest whereas an animal confined to a lake must stay there for it's whole life.

Come on, you and I both know that it is an illusion as was the "face" on Mars. Also, I know it's a genuine photo, but it's an illusion... And you are going to say, how do you know it's an illusion? Well, because frankly, after a few decades of searching for life on Mars, we haven't found anything besides traces of water for now. About the illusion, we see things not as they are but as we are. We as human beings need to relate to things we see in any way possible, even if it means drastic things.

I never said that having videos is proof, I said it's possible proof. Also, then how come the Patterson video is the most famous video of all time of Bigfoot despite there being a ton of more faked videos. An illusion, exactly.

Didn't you say this already...? If not, then yes it does seem suspicious to me. However the Patterson video seems to be truth but lies are based on it.

Well... here. Be sure to watch the other four parts to the whole thing. See, look at that. People actually using scientific instruments to investigate the claims of Bigfoot. You can't really argue much with professional people who know what they are doing.

If you will, I'd like to see a different reference, since anyone is allowed to edit it, it isn't the most credible resource.

Paranoid about people flaming me for stuff? No, just angry about it. And I did not assume everything was being said against my name. Now you are just assuming things about me again.

I also love how you assume things about me. When you assume...

You know the game and we're going to play it. You can't really say I ignored everything now, since you forced me to reply to every damn thing you say or else you will say "Ha! You retreated! Victory is mine!" Since I'm not supposed to ignore everything or else you will get mad at me, I can't drop it for fear of just that.

Then I propose that every rebuttal from each of us from now on has to either remove or merge on quote that is unrelated to our Bigfoot discussion.

 

I'll try and make this brief so we don't have to spend two full posts replying each time...

Didn't work. Tell you what, if you don't agree to dropping everything that's not Bigfoot related, would you like to continue via PM? I'm fine continuing like this, though it does seem a bit excessive, as you can see.

I'm not going to blame you for ignoring all the off topic stuff. It was only when you were ignoring the relevant stuff that I got pissed off.

I also said you cannot simply expect to say something like that and not have anyone challenge you. This is not one of the things you can simply drop, and it was a point that you cause your own threads to be locked by creating such a stir like that, and then blame others for it. That's what I was saying.

Also, you have never once, to my knowledge, explained why you said that.

That's not what you were saying earlier. Regardless, and going back to what we were originally saying here, simply arguing in a thread does not get it locked.

I'm not following. Which thread are you referring back to here?

No... I was kinda the one who originally offered it to you...

Yes, you seem to be able to comment all right, but it's the moving on that you've got a problem with. There's a difference between a normal reply and moving on. If you don't actually say that you're letting it go, how am I supposed to know you have? It's like if someone proposes to 'agree to disagree'. If the other just continues replying normally, how does the first guy know that he's agreed?

Not at all. In fact, it's clearly evident that that's what it is from your perspective as well, especially with what you said earlier. Regardless, I've offered to move on, and you haven't accepted it, thus perpetuating the debate.

So again, drop it and move on?

Abuse yes, you'll find. You directly complained that I was flaming you and that others were just insulting.

And I've already told you why the blood thread was locked.

And which of those contains the content about what was previously being debated? You still blatantly ignored everyone's posts about Bigfoot, regardless of how much punctuation you put in.

I've already explained this earlier. It's an agreement, not a demand. And for the record, I don't care who backs out. Provided we're in agreement, how would either one of us have the upper hand?

If that were the case there would be a subspecies, or simply a different species, of Bigfoot still roaming the open plains. The entirety of the species of primate that, too, learned to walk upright, would not all have moved back into the forest. You will never find the entirety of a specie evolve into something else like that. If it did work that way, then all moneys would have evolved to walk upright, and then have evolved into humans.

To put it simply, that is not a valid way to explain upright walking primates living in the forest. I'll go into further detail later if what I've just said does not suffice.

Due to having such obstructed visibility in forests, even if they are sparse, there is no need for a height advantage. If you mean a height advantage in regards to scaring off potential predators and whatnot, then it would have evolved in a similar fashion to the gorilla. Regardless, walking on two legs remains as an ineffective method of locomotion for forest-dwellers.

If we drove them back then we would have clashed with them. Seriously, imagine you and a group of mates encroaching into the junior years' 'territory', if you will, at school. How would you drive them back from where they without seeing them?

If insular dwarfism is correct, which it is, then it would have never have grown to that size in the first place. Even if it did evolve to be bigger, and therefore have fewer predators, then it wouldn't have evolved to walk as we do. Walking upright, as we do, is a hindrance in such an environment. On top of that, what predators are there in its hypothesised habitat that would force it to those sizes?

It's just like how gorillas and chimpanzees have not divergently evolved to be similar. If they hadn't, then they'd have hardly have divergently evolved at all, now, would they? You've also got to keep in mind they those live in the exact same environment, and have still evolved to be blatantly distinct from each other. If, as you say, Bigfoot has been sighted all over the place then it would have evolved to be different, and would not be reported as a sighting of Bigfoot. It's just the fame that makes people say they saw it, regardless of where they are.

 

What does that prove exactly?

No, but were you aware that the DNA of bananas is fifty percent identical to humans? Besides, if anything, that point is detrimental to your case. If cats were a cryptid, and you saw a hyena, would you report that as a cat sighting? The same applies to if hyenas or dogs were cryptids. If anything it just goes to show that these people are just saying they saw Bigfoot for the buzz.

Well surely you can at least remember if they were all within the United States or not. It's not like I need the specific address of the supposed sighting. Where do you remember these reports coming from?

That's a double edged sword. If nothing is fake about a video, then it should not be counted as true, because there might not be anything true about it either. Seriously, just reread that argument and replace 'true' with 'false', and vice versa, and you'll see that it applies to both sides. So, instead of finding nothing that's fake and saying it's true, or nothing that's true and saying it's fake, why not find something that's true before saying it's true, and finding something that's fake before saying it's fake?

You've got to find something conclusive. Not being able to find anything fake, is not conclusive in the slightest.

Exactly, there's no evidence of it being faked, and there's no evidence of it being true. That's called being inconclusive, and it holds no merit.

As for the people revealing that it was faked, again, it doesn't actually count as being true, so it and holds no merit, just the same as the 'evidence' they're saying is fake holds no merit. Both are inconclusive. You cannot use it as proof. However, for argument's sake, pitting the inconclusive evidence against the inconclusive admission, the inconclusive admission has substantially more circumstantial evidence, most admissions, being by those who would have been most likely to have been told or were there, happen after they have died.

Scientists do not deny its existence because they're skeptical, Dark. If you read the "View among the scientific community" section on Wikipedia, even if it's just the first paragraph, you'll see why they discredit it.

Also, the fourth paragraph of the "View among the scientific community" section discredits the rest of what you said, about scientists not trying, and not going out with a research team, etc, etc. In short, there are scientists who do all those things.

That's not the comparison that's being drawn. The comparison is that they're both large expanses of the same habitat. Not the same as in similar to the other, but the same as in regards to the habitat of the area it covers. You're making a completely different comparison.

Yes, the face was proven to be an illusion , but that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the fact that the 'Bigfoot' on Mars is inconclusive. They can not deduce what it is from the photo. They cannot deduce whether it's an alien, an illusion or a rock. It's inconclusive. Remember what you were saying earlier? About how if nothing fake can be found then it should be counted as real? See how it isn't a justifiable conclusion?

Also, people have found no more evidence of Bigfoot in the past five decades of searching for it than NASA has found of Martian life in all their expeditions. How come you believe in one but deny the other?

I never said that having videos is proof, I said it's possible proof. Also, then how come the Patterson video is the most famous video of all time of Bigfoot despite there being a ton of more faked videos. An illusion, exactly.[/quote]
It is only proof if a conclusion can be reached upon whether it's fake or not. Seeing as there is none, it's not proof.

And maybe it's because the others have been proven to have been hoaxed while the Patterson film is still inconclusive? Why would people even be interested in something they know is fake?

Yes, but I don't recall being given a direct answer. As for the Patterson video seeming to be truth... What is exactly truthful about it? Just because you cannot see visual proof that it's fake doesn't mean it's real. We've been over this.

You expect me to watch forty minutes of sensationalised Bigfoot expeditions when you won't even read over a paragraph of one section on Wikipedia? If you'd read that section then you'd find that there are scientists who investigate the matter, and based on relevant information, not carcass imprints and strides.

You do realise that Wikipedia is fully cited, do you not?

I was not talking about the flaming, dude. Look back over what's been said.

So you're saying you didn't do all that?

I've been over this. And the fact that you've replied to everything since does not prove you weren't ignoring stuff before.

And no, I wouldn't gloat. Notice how I haven't gloated about how you stopped the PM conversation? Yes, I did use that fact to prove a point, but I have never laughed at you because of it. And I've already said I only got pissed when you ignored the main points. These are not, and I've already offered to drop them.

Not quite sure I understand your preposition. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I don't see how that would help at all.

 

Uhh... why didn't it work? Also, I would not like to continue this in PM.

This isn't one of the things we can simply drop... What about the thing about how you said to drop it and move on? You can't take your own advice?

Apparently, it does.

My blood thread. You said:

This is how I felt on my blood thread. You knew perfectly well that I didn't mean blood in a vacuum.

You have a problem moving on too... I reply with a comment but in your next post, you pose a question to go with it. So I don't know... you tell me who has the problem moving on. I already dropped probably about two of your posts already here. Me. I dropped some of the posts first.

I already accepted to move on, and like I said earlier, when I post a comment, you post a question to go along with it. So I have to answer that. Also, how do you know I haven't accepted it? You couldn't accept my simple plan of dropping at least one of the non-topic related arguments but you said it didn't work. Tell me, why didn't it work? It worked for me. I could live with dropping a few posts. Why can't you?

Fine then, call it what you want. I only complained that you were flaming me, not that others were insulting. The others were barely participating in this discussion.

Not answering my question and replacing it with one that suits you. I'm not sure you can say that I ignored them anymore. I answered them already. Punctuation gets the emotions out. It looks like you need another example.
"I hate you." "I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Which one has more emotion.... Also, the post you replied to, it was a rhetorical question.

If you don't care who backs out then why did you say my proposal didn't work? That's how one would have the upper hand. If you can't drop a single post out of how ever many there are, I only see that you can get the upper hand because of your refusal to try what I said.

Which post should I look at...?

You're assuming that I'm saying that I didn't do it at all. Assuming again are we? I never said I didn't assume.

Yes, but you can't keep saying that I am ignoring things now because that is untrue. If you wouldn't gloat, then make my idea work. You used that fact to prove a point? You told me that I stopped the PM conversation because I had lost and that my loss of "ambition" was just to cover up my humiliating defeat. I'd call that gloating. So stop getting pissed because I am addressing the main points. I've offered to drop them to but you haven't.

My proposition* is to drop at least one of the non-topic related arguments each time we make a new post. You don't see how that would help at all? I'm making this thread get back on topic that's how it's going to help. Do it and don't pretend you don't know what it means or that it won't help me to get out of it. Swallow your pride and fold.

Why would all monkeys have evolved to walk upright? I'm saying that some primates went and lived in the open and adapted to two feet and then something could have forced them to go back to the forests. How is this not a valid way to explain it? Do you have a better explanation?

I mean it both as just a height advantage to make use of the environment and to scare off potential predators. Also, you don't know how evolution works. You can't simply predict what it would have evolved into. Look at Kangaroos. Do you think a small mouse like mammal that lived on Australia millions of years ago would evolve to have a pouch? That's pretty far-fetched if you look at it from that far away. But just look. They live out in the open most of the time and they have a pouch to protect their younglings.

They have lots of places in the forest to hide. At school, there is nothing. You can't really compare those two situations.

You're right, it wouldn't have evolved to walk as we did. If you had watched the video like I asked you to, then you would see my point. Well, maybe jaguars or something of that sort can make it grow to such immense heights. Just look at us humans. We don't even have predators and our height average is growing.

 

Exactly, if those two animals didn't evolve to be the same thing then Bigfoot could quite well possibly be one of those weird evolutions that didn't end up the same as it's other primate relatives. Not reported as a sighting of Bigfoot, it would say sighting of Bigfoot like creature.

They have different names for it so we may not know what they are talking about and could mistakenly think that it means something other than what it really means.

No I wasn't aware. I would have reported them as a dog sighting. My point is that even if Bigfoot looks like a walking primate other than us humans, it could possibly be related to something else.

Well surely you can at least remember if they were all within the United States or not. It's not like I need the specific address of the supposed sighting. Where do you remember these reports coming from?

I guess I should say that they were all on the continent of North America, hence people calling it the North American Bigfoot.

Because no matter what, to find out if a picture or a video is true, you have to find nothing fake about it. To prove it false, you have to find something fake about it. You don't even know what you're looking for on the video so you don't know what truth would be. You can only look for telltale signs of a hoaxed sighting. If nothing is fake about it, you can't call it inconclusive because that would be every possible video of a possible thing being called a fake. How about the video of the moon landings? Can you find anything fake about it? If not, I guess that it's inconclusive according to what you said.

Well, your rule of "if-there-is-no-faked-evidence-then-it-must-be-inconclusive" doesn't work either. You would be labeling all videos as fakes. If both are inconclusive then you cannot use the confession any more than how I can use a Bigfoot picture. So what if there is more credibility in the admission, after all, since it's inconclusive it doesn't count. Also, they may have just wanted fame or if they had a grudge against Patterson they could have done it to ruin his name and fame.

I did read it and they discredit it because of all the hoaxes and they don't even think of the possibility of it existing. They are skeptical and therefore will not even try to prove it. The scientists that do go out and try to find evidence are the open minded ones. If you had watched my video, the people in there do exactly that.

Well you can't compare those two together. You cannot simply discard other factors and only leave what you think is best for your argument. It's like comparing Earth and Venus. Earth is about the same size as Venus. Oh wait, Venus has clouds made of sulfuric acid. You are the one making a completely different comparison. This is real life. If you don't include all possible factors, then the argument cannot be valid.

See, it was proven to be an illusion. You can't use that as an argument. The Patterson video hasn't been proven fake other than the possible admission. Exactly then, it's inconclusive, but let's look at the facts. Obviously, it can't be a man in a space gorilla suit. Obviously it can't be human made. Most likely, it can't be life because scientists all say that all life requires water. Especially in Mars' environment, nothing could survive there. Still inconclusive? What is the most probable thing it could be? A rock. You can't choose inconclusiveness over logic. Again, we see things not as they really are but as we are. We see it as we want it to be seen. It's like those inkblots. We see whatever we want to see. Same as that illusion.

If you watched the video, you would see that people analyzed the video and other pieces of possible evidence.

Yes, and I read the entire article on Bigfoot. Again, you assume things. I know about scientists investigating things. If you had just watched the whole video, all five parts, like I asked you to, then you wouldn't say some of these things. They don't just automatically say that a footprint is a sign of Bigfoot. They actually looked at its footprint, meaning the pattern of the ridges.

You do realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia, do you not?


Wow, this is long. I spent like half an hour just replying to everything.

 

Trying to get it down to one post by being brief. And no problem, we'll continue here.

I've already responded to this. You can't just drop anything. For example, if I were to say that Hitler were right in every regard, would you expect that everyone would allow it to be dropped? What if I said that all girls were sluts?

If it did, we wouldn't have any open threads. Again, simply arguing in a thread does not get it locked.

You always refer to it as 'blood in a vacuum'. How many times do I have to say that it's simply pure blood? And yes, I knew what you meant, but that's not good enough when you're publicly labelling a third of the voters as morons.

How is that a problem? You can just answer the question and then say that it's getting out of hand and agree with the proposal to drop it. In this case, you could just say something like 'Ok, I get your point. Anyway, let's move on.' Or, if you didn't get my point, say 'I stand by what I did, but anyway, let's move on.' Regardless of anything, it's still got to be an agreement.

Big whoop, I have too. Can we drop the rest of this off-topic bickering now so we don't have to go through two posts for every reply?

You could have fooled me. I don't recall having come to an agreement to drop all this.

I wasn't aware of your plan. Do you mind directing me back to it? And there's nothing to say you can't answer a question and agree to drop it in one post, or even one sentence.

How could they if they weren't getting responses?

Well firstly, was the question rhetorical or not? You seem to have gone both ways on it. Also, emotion has nothing to do with whether you responded to what was being discussed or not. You didn't, and no example will show that you did.

Oh, and nice, subtle conjecture, there. I like it.

Again, I don't know what proposal you're referring to. If it's the one about merging quotes, I don't see how that would help either way.

Here, if memory serves. Last quote and reply. I said that assuming it wasn't blown out of proportion, the thread shouldn't need to be locked. You then asked if you were the one who did, and where you had supposedly done so.

The fact remains that you did do all you were accused of doing. That was my point.

I'm not saying you are ignoring things now. And what idea are you talking about?

Also, I never said anything about covering up a humiliating defeat. I do find it odd though that you weren't able to reply with an answer to the question that you asked everyone else and judged them by.

And I love how it's you who's offered to drop all this now. Was that before or after I already had?

Firstly, get off your high horse, you hypocritical knob jockey. I can't instantly understand everything you try and say. Obviously what I thought you were suggesting was not what you were.

As for actually dropping the off-topic points, if they're going to be dropped anyway, why not just let it all go like I proposed in the first place? Seriously dude, you're acting like such a hypocrite right now.

They wouldn't all have evolved to walk upright for the same reasons that all ancestral monkeys didn't all evolve into homo erectus. These adaptations occur through small mutations that allow the animal to be better suited to a different environment. Then, as the genetics of this mutation are passed on, and more and more monkeys develop a more upright posture or whatever, they're going to move to sparser and sparser areas of forest. Seeing as now the monkeys with that mutation are living in a more exclusive area, the old 'hunched' genes will eventually be bred out.

It's not as simple as all the monkeys in the forests deciding to live in the open plains, evolving as such, and then fleeing at the first sign of humans on the horizon.

Well, yes, a height advantage in a forest is nullified by it begin so cramped, and there's no predator there, that I'm aware of, that would force it to grow that large.

No, I can't predict what things would have evolved into, but saying that all the great apes in the North American forest evolved into Bigfoot simultaneously is simply ludicrous. As for simply 'evolving' pouches, it's not like that at all. Firstly, they didn't just evolve in Australia. There are marsupials all over the world to prove they evolved way before then, and also to prove that it wasn't due to being in the open. Seriously, just look at the opossum, which is not Australian and doesn't live in the open, and the possum and koala, which do not live in the open. A pouch is not an adaptation due to living in open spaces. If it was, then elephants and giraffes would have them as well.

Pouches would have evolved just like placentals and egglayers, including monotremes, would have evolved, all three, including marsupials, being different to one another. The same as how feathers evolved to be different to fur which evolved to be different to scales which evolved to be different to carapaces.

So, yes, I think it's safe to say I know my fair share about evolution.

 

You're forgetting that you're proposing that mankind drove back the Bigfooters from the open plains, into the forest. Seeing as the school is open, it's like driving them into a nearby bush, where there'd be plenty of space to hide, without ever seeing them.

The case and point is that it does walk upright. The way it moves its knees, or whatever, is irrelevant. It walks upright, which is does, then it isn't suited to such an environment.

I find it funny that you wouldn't read a couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia, and perhaps take a gander at the citations before pulling the 'Wikipedia can be edited by anyone' card, but you still expect me to watch forty minutes of YouTube videos. I did watch your videos, by the way, and your point is moot. It walks upright.

As for us, it's for numerous reasons. Firstly, we've largely been our own predators. Not only physically, but genetically, as well as environmentally, too. We've waged wars for centuries, acting as a selecting agent for the strongest and tallest, women are scientifically more attracted to stronger men, just as men are scientifically more attracted to wide-hipped women, and it's also been found that women are more attracted to men who are bigger than them, which, after time, would accumulate in a taller race. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we've had the space to grow. Look at pygmies, and guess where they live.

That's a very thin stretch there. I mean, it's not as though there was a catalyst which caused them to all evolve as one, and given the time that they've supposed to have had away from all other primates, it would not have just stayed as one specie. Evolution does not work like that.

I'm really sorry, but I still can't see how that's evidence, or whatever, of Bigfoot's existence.

Any suggestions? I can't really think of anything in the North American forest that would even remotely suit the comparison. Also, aren't you kinda going against your prized YouTube video here?

And was this before or after the initial hype about the Bigfoot footprints? Regardless, this goes against what you were originally saying about Nessy.

So if you can't see anything false about something, it's true? What if I were to fake a Triantiwantigongalope sighting? If you can't find anything to prove that it's fake, does the Triantiwantigongalope suddenly exist?

And going by your own logic there, the 'Bigfoot on Mars' image must be true. After all, can you prove that there's nothing fake about it?

Also, this goes back to what I'd said about professional analysts, but apart from that, there are truths in the moon landing video. Calculations can be made over the trajectory of the dirt and astronauts, it's clearly visible that there are no stars, which there wouldn't be on the light side of the moon, which is the side they landed on, and the astronauts gait would not be able to be mimicked on Earth, if they'd have even have though of mimicking it, and also because of the equipment that was left behind.

Just because I can't tell if there's anything fake or authentic about it doesn't mean that no-one can tell if there's anything fake or authentic about it. Again, professional analysts.

And exactly, that was a part of what I'd said. It's inconclusive evidence against a confession that might never have existed. In that case, the circumstantial evidence stacks up against Bigfoot existing. You can't use the 'inconclusive' against one but not the other. That's simply a double standard. As for the grudge, firstly it doesn't solely apply to the Patterson film, and if they had a grudge, why would the others have waited until they died?If you wanted to get back at someone, would you wait until they were dead first? Seems doubtful, don't you think?

They also discredited it on account of the massive lack of evidence; the fact that such a creature wouldn't live in such an environment, that it's size is a joke for its backstory, the completely different climate, the fact that that area is void of any other primate live or evidence thereof, the fact that no remains have ever been found and, in summation, the overall fact that such a creature's existence is an illogical absurdity.

You cannot simply dismiss the entire scientific community's views by saying they're sceptical. Firstly, it's not as though they'd have asked a chemist or anything. Cryptids have their own scientific field, being cryptozoology, so the ones that would have made the judgement would have been these, who are dedicated to such causes and whose opinions actually hold merit. Secondly, it's not as though the few scientists who have done field work have ended up believing in its existence. You'd've seen that if you'd've read the full article.

Again, that's not the comparison being made. Physical characteristics of the environment are not even part of this comparison. They are both large expanses of the same type of environment. That's what I said. If a similar comparison were to be made between Earth and Venus, it would be that they are the same size, so would have approximately the same gravity. See how the surface is irrelevant in that comparison? It's same as the physical characteristics in the comparison of an expanse of forest and networks of lakes that I made.

You are an absolute champion. This is exactly what I've been saying about Bigfoot. The pictures and videos are only proof if a conclusion can be reached upon whether it's fake or not. Seeing as there is none, it's not proof. Thank you.

Firstly I'll just say how I love that you take the scientists views when it suits you. Earlier you were rubbishing them for being sceptical, in the Extra-Terrestrial thread you had you said that they couldn't 'know' life requires water, and now you've done a complete one eighty.

Regardless, you've said enough to further my case about Bigfoot. The pictures and videos aren't proof, and people see things as they want to see things. Perhaps not visually in this case, but in what they believe.

 

If you watched it closer then you'd see that they couldn't deem whether it was real or fake from the video itself.

On top of that, you may have noticed that an 'expert' was talking about the possibility that Bigfoot could be our closest relative, when they specifically stated that it existed alongside homo erectus, which evolved into both humans and chimpanzees, meaning that it couldn't possibly be closer related to us than them.

I've watched them now, and you either hadn't read the article or chose to dismiss a lot of it. You'll notice that they couldn't actually link the ridges on the foot to anything, which doesn't actually prove anything. And who's to say that it wasn't an accidental byproduct of the feet being cast in clay? Or from the ground over time? Or that it wasn't an enthusiast who knew about the ridges when creating it? Or that it wasn't someone who wanted to capture the detail so sculpted it with the same features as a human foot? Or someone who hadn't done five minutes of research on footprints? Or simply weathering from the rain?

Regardless, it wasn't even conclusive on the video, anyway.

Do you know what citations are? They're links to other sites that the information from the article has come from specifically. Seriously, go to that part and click the hyperlink reference number. It'll take you to another site that will have the same information.

 

NON-TOPIC DISCUSSION

Of course not, but in this thread, s couple of these things can be dropped with relative ease.

I'd show you but the threads that were locked with arguments on it were ones I could not find. My blood thread is the only thing there that you could see.

See! You knew what I meant and yet you still pressed me about how blood could be blue under extreme circumstances.

Because instead of saying "Oh I get your point, let's move on," you could just leave it out. If I say, "I stand by what I did," that's not much of an agreement because you still have differing opinions than what mine are and you won't be able to say it without me saying that you brought it up again.

You're the one who turned it into two posts... And now you turned it into three...

Yeah, I don't recall that either because I didn't say that. I said let's drop some of them. Well, like I said. I comment and then you post another comment or a question.

Say something? Just look, it's only you and me on this thread now.

The first one you quoted was rhetorical, but this one you can consider it either way. How does emotion have nothing to do with it? I bet if I hadn't put all of those question and exclamation marks in there, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. No example to show that I already answered the questions? Where have you been? What do you think we've been talking about for the past five or so posts?

The proposal was to either merge one of the quotes or leave it out entirely... You don't see how it would help? It would make it shorter and then I wouldn't have to write two posts for your three posts.

Uhh... what was that link supposed to show? That stuff in the "reply" isn't me blowing things out of proportion. Just how were those statements blowing things out of proportion? You were the one who came in storming with that gigantic post of yours. And now it got split into a billion quotes that we each have to reply to.

Well what was I accused of doing?

Stop saying "What idea?" "What proposal?" It was to EITHER MERGE OR DROP ONE OF THE QUOTES EVERY TIME WE POSTED.

You found it odd? You said: I don't think you said you "found it odd". I think the message was more like "YOU LOSE, NOW STFU!"

That was after you already had. So why can't you also take your own advice?

Throwing around personal insults again are we? You can't instantly understand everything I try to say? Well think of how I feel with you and your complex way of arguing.

Why not just let it all go? Because like I told you, even if we don't say anything, the other person will be thinking, "Yes! He lost!" Also, tell me how am I acting hypocritical? Is it not dropping posts? Well I am, and what about you?

Okay then. Now let's drop this.

BIGFOOT

Exactly. So the "hunched" genes could have went away through a mutation towards the primates still living in the forests and then they migrated elsewhere.

I meant that you don't know exactly how evolution works like how scientists have things they can't explain yet so you can't assume the way it works. I didn't mean you didn't know anything about evolution, just to clear this up in case you took it the wrong way.

If it's so ridiculous, then why did scientists actually find things about possible Bigfoot sightings and evidence. Yes, there are tree dwelling marsupials yet kangaroos did not lose their pouch bearing genes when they would not have much use for it besides nurturing their extremely small young, which may not come out that young if they did not have the pouch to begin with. Also, I did not say all apes in the North American forests turned into Bigfoot. The thing with monotremes is that it seems to have been a cross between a reptile and a mammal and possibly being an in between evolved form of a reptile that never evolved entirely into a mammal. If the pouch is not an adaptation to living in open spaces, then Bigfoot's size could also have not been an adaptation, and simply have been an unexpected mutation.

...Can you please not use that? A bush has way less space compared to a real forest. It's way different. If you said it was an beetle that got driven into the bush, then maybe.

 

The way it's knees move though, like what they said in the video, can partially prove the Patterson video may be real after all. Since the study of those things was very basic back then, no one could have known or even done what the alleged Bigfoot's knees seem to do. And umm... yes it walks upright... your argument is...? I do agree with the things you said in that third paragraph. And I'll bring up what you said about insular dwarfism. Since Bigfoot would be confined to a smaller space, it may be smaller than what it used to be fifty years ago but it cannot simply shrink an entire foot in such a short amount of time.

As for wikipedia, I read it. Okay? As for the videos, do you mean it's of no value or do you mean that it's open for debate?

Yes, so maybe one of them had a mutation and bred with another and passed down the mutation and eventually the mutation took effect and cause them to grow to immense sizes. Look at the elephant for example. Maybe a group of primates all moved away, grew to be larger, and did stay as one species due to having only themselves to breed with. Since they had only a small group with them, they had to interbreed and therefore there would be a larger chance of a mutation occurring which could have caused the growth.

*Sigh* Fine, I'm dropping this.

No, it's not really going against my "prized" video. I'm only saying that there could be a chance that it may not be a primate. The ones it the video are looking for a primate and they are comparing the evidence to known primates as well as other animals.

Okay, this has really gotten to me and I wanted to refrain from turning one of the the on topic discussions into an off topic one but why do you always bring up either a point or a question and then say it doesn't matter?

I'm only going to guess and say that people had already seen it around North America and only wanted to report it to other people after the video because they didn't know what it was or they thought people wouldn't believe them.

No it doesn't make it automatically true, but it doesn't make it false and it can't be inconclusive because since you can't prove it fake, it can be closer to the truth. I know what you mean about if you can't find anything fake, it makes it inconclusive, but this would be talking about every video. Well the only question would be, are you good enough to fake it?

No I cannot prove that the Bigfoot on Mars picture is fake but this is where a thing called logic (omg it exists!) comes in. If I told you my calculator suddenly started to float in mid air and I showed you a video of it, and you couldn't find anything fake about it, would that mean it's inconclusive? Obviously not because you have logic to know it's untrue. And then what happens if a few days later, I told you that the video didn't show me holding a thin string attached to the calculator? Logic came in to play even when you didn't know about my trickery. And yes, I do know that this goes against the Patterson video, but going back to the video, they said it was high unlikely it was faked.

And so there, you proved the moonlanding was not faked, yet some people still believe that it's been faked.

Which is why on the video I showed you they said it was not faked. Those guys were professional analysts.

Why wait until they are dead? Well, so they can't do anything to get back at them.

The reason for the lack of evidence is because they never went out and tried to find it in the first place. When scientists first discovered the platypus, they thought it was a joke too. It was an illogical absurdity, but guess what, it exists!

I didn't say everyone was skeptical, I had specifically said only the close-minded ones. So you are saying that most scientists should not be allowed to simply dismiss Bigfoot, it should only be the cryptozoologists, correct? Then I do agree with you. Seriously, stop assuming I didn't read the full article, I did and I went to each of the sites under external links.

Well you can't simply discard other factors. Would you like to compare a frog's habitat from a lakeside to a small desert? Both large expanses right? Irrelevant surface? It matters. Like my lake to the small desert comparison. A desert is dry and the frog wouldn't be able to live there for a long period of time. It's real life, you can't change things to your liking. What we are discussing could possibly be real and if so we have to look at everything within reality.

 

I'd hate to break this to you but that was actually you who said it but when I tried to quote it, it messed up. As for what you said though, no large group of professional analysts have actually sat down, analyzed every bit of the Patterson video, made a conclusion, and told anyone publicly. So it's unfair that you said it's not proof. You can't just say "screw it" either.

Okay, I also love how you bend reality to your will. Also, that was over a year ago, my views may have changed in 365 days. Especially since you keep hammering your ideas into my head. And yes, they do not know life requires water, only that planet Earth's life requires water.

Regardless, regardless, regardless... again. If I made a complete 180, according to you, then it must help forward your case against Bigfoot. If pictures and videos aren't proof, then the moon landing might as well have been faked. After all, the pictures of the equipment on the moon could have been faked.

We don't know what Bigfoot is, so again, don't assume that you know what it is. Also ItzaHexGore, I'm betting that you listened extremely closely to anything about them saying it was inconclusive or fake. So could you give me the time on the video where he says it's inconclusive?

... If that top paragraph didn't matter, then it doesn't matter if I read the article or not, which I did. If they couldn't link the ridges to any known primate or other animal, then obviously it's something we haven't discovered. Again, use your logic. This means that it furthers the existence of Bigfoot because the large footprint, which corresponds with the overall description of Bigfoot footprints, as extremely large. See, now you're are just trying to find something, anything that will disprove the footprint because now that professionals have analyzed it, you don't have much of an argument without going out there yourself and doing it.

Yes, I know, but who's going to go to each of the sites and see if the information is the same as what's shown on Wikipedia? Anyone can edit it to their liking and still have it go unnoticed by the people who read it.


Okay, that took even longer than last time, and last time I had lost half of it after pressing backspace when it wasn't selected in the text which made me go back a page.

 

He's not saying you couldn't see them in the bush he's saying you drove them into the bush from the open concrete without seeing them.

you're butchering evolution, for this to happen the mutation would have to make bigfoot better,the strong genes do better and thus are passed down more, considering a height 'advantage' could actually be disadvantages to these creature, it's just not going to happen.

Can you prove anything 'true' about it? No? then it can be closer to false.

Well, my logic goes against the existence the bigfoot, scientific logic points more to the existence of alien life, some of which could quite possibly be bigfoot-esque considering the vastness of space, so there we go, logic is more on the side of the bigfoot on mars picture than any of the bigfoot on earth pictures.

*facepalm* you're completely missing the point...

 

Exactly, so why did you expect to drop it in the other thread? You've just admitted that you shouldn't be able to drop such topics.

How about looking for threads with arguments that weren't locked while you're at it?

Yes, and I've already explained that it was the fact you were labelling people as morons when you didn't understand it yourself that was the problem.

No you can't, because I won't know that you agreed to or not. And it's called 'agreeing to disagree'.

Again, you're simply blaming others. You suggesting that you played no part in it? I'll remind you that the vast majority of the content came about from what you've said, or not said, to be more precise. And again, why can't we just agree to move on?

That's because we haven't come to an agreement. Seriously, I've offered so many times and you just completely ignore or evade it, just like what you said in response to me one quote up.

That's irrelevant to what I was saying. Also, overmind's still here.

So you're saying that if you hadn't put all those exclamation and question marks in, then you'd've magically responded to everyone?

No, I didn't understand what you'd written. Also, that naturally happens anyway.

For ****'s sake they are not being blown out of proportion. I said that assuming things were not blown out of proportion then it wouldn't have to be locked. It was saying the thread was back on track. Jeez, this is what I meant about you being paranoid.

Would it kill you to look back over the thread? It was ignoring people, blaming others, acting self-righteous and playing the victim.

Mind finding the quote of me saying that?

Because it was an offer. I can't accept my own offer now, can I? Every time I've posed the question you've fobbed me off.

So again, do you want to drop all this and just stick to talking about Bigfoot? I mean, it's already taking about a decade to reply each time.

Yeah, 'cause it's not like you were acting out of line at all. Nah, it's always everyone except you who's wrong.

Well before you were saying we were the only two here, so that's obviously not the reason.

You've acting like a hypocrite by proposing to drop it, and holding it against me that I haven't agreed, when I was the one to propose it and you didn't agree to it.

Sigh. Mind opening with that next time? I've already typed up all that.

Anyway, done. It's dropped. Regardless of whether you want to reply to what I've said or not, I don't mind.

I'm not following. Mutations only catch on if they're a success. Bigfoot does not possess the biological mutations that would allow it to live ideally in such a forest.

Good. So am I right in saying that you understand it's a illogical absurdity that it would be living in such forests?

Ok, but can I just say that scientists do have a very strong understanding of evolution? The only thing they don't know, and cannot prove, is life on Earth began through evolution. They've proven that life could form on primitive Earth, but there's no way to prove that it did unless someone was physically there to see it happen, which is of course impossible.

Because all they found was a possibility. It, too, goes along the lines of it being inconclusive. If they actually had found something substantial, then it would not be a cryptid.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Pouches are not an adaptation to large, open areas of land. Also, they did not simply evolve in a single generation. It would have taken millions of years to achieve such a huge evolutionary change. And I don't see how this has anything to do with anything. I mean, even sharks don't all give birth the same way. Some lay eggs, some give birth to live young. What's it proving?

There are no other apes in those same forests, so for Bigfoot to be the only thing there, they would have had to have all evolved into the same specie.

Differing methods of birth do not change what an animal is classified as. The only classification that monotremes share with reptiles are that they're both vertebrates. But as I said before, giving birth in different ways doesn't change anything.

A mutation, especially of that scale, would only catch on if it was advantageous to the individual. Given its surroundings, that is not the case.

overmind covered this nicely. You'd still have to drive them off of the open concrete anyway. Regardless, if you think a bush is too different, then would you be able to drive the kids into a forest without seeing them?

 

What stops someone performing a hoax walking a different gait? They never said it's impossible for a human to walk like that, they just said that humans don't.

It's not a forest-dwelling animal.

If that were the case then it wouldn't've moved to the forests. If there was a subspecies or something that evolved to be much smaller, then it may have moved to the forests, but something the size of Bigfoot, or bigger, would not have.

There were definitely some interesting findings, but the fact remains that there was nothing conclusive. And the fact that they

The mutation would have only have caught on if it was advantageous. In its supposed conditions, they would not have been.

Nice. You've shown you've got a clear understanding here. However, if it was advantageous when it was migrating, which it would have been, then yes, it sounds plausible, especially with the in-breeding, but that same creature would not have then gone and lived in a forest.

Depending on what you're suggesting it is if not a primate, I think that would only make it harder to believe.

Because not every point is relevant to what was originally said. A single point can split into several, as we've seen. Other than that, it's mainly just a way to put a statement after a question, instead of being forced to have it ordered the other way around, where it might not flow as well.

I hope that helps.

That may explain an immediate increase in reported sightings after it's been publicly announced, but it doesn't explain why more videos were captured afterwards, including the Patterson film, or the drastic and consistent increase in reported sightings after that. The trend of Bigfoot sightings has been said to follow a hype-shaped trend, not a natural one.

Well if it's not confirmed to be true, and if it's not confirmed to be fake, what else would it be if not inconclusive?

That's true, and applies to the Patterson video as well. If it was faked, they were obviously smart enough to cover up any paper-trail of a man-made costume, to have acted up the walking, etc.

Logic plays a part in believing about Bigfoot as well, you know. For example, despite its immense popularity and the number of expeditions by enthusiasts and cryptozoologists alike, there hasn't been a shred of physical evidence of its existence. Logic also plays a part when thinking of how it all began, with the confirmed faked footprints, and the spike in sightings and other 'evidence' since then.

As for the calculator, I wouldn't be able to confirm that it wasn't floating, regardless of what I thought. Analysts, on the other hand, would be able to measure the trajectory of how it moves and stuff, and, when given the information of how much it weighs, etc, would be able to tell if it had been suspended by a piece of string, or balanced on a thin stick, or whatever. It's happened before. And yes, that does go strongly against the Patterson video. As for saying it's unlikely that it was faked, they're talking about specific features there, like the gait and the bulge. The video as a whole is simply inconclusive.

That's because they don't know the facts. A common argument by such people is that there are no stars in the videos, but seeing as they landed on the light side of the moon, what with the dark side of the moon being extremely cold and having no light and whatnot, it's obviously the moon's day time, and, as we know, stars are drowned out by the light of the sun during the day. The only reason the sky was not blue was because the moon does not have an atmosphere for the light to refract off of.

Yes, but they didn't obtain anything conclusive. It's the same with all shows like that. I remember watching one on Jack the Ripper, and they said they'd be analysing new evidence, evidence that hadn't been made public before, find out who he is, etc, etc, but the only conclusion they came to was a fairly large area where they suspect he may have lived at one stage in his life.

So how come nothing ever came out about them being threatened to keep it a secret?

No, the thing with the platypus was that when a stuffed specimen and drawing were sent back, the people in England thought it was a hoax. It was not an illogical absurdity.

Well it's pretty universally dismissed by the scientific community, so unless you're saying that the scientific community is pretty universally close-minded, I don't see how you can dismiss their opinion.

Yes, and they're the ones who represent the scientific community in this case. Seriously, it's not as though they asked chemists whether they thought it was real. It's the cryptozoologists who, as a whole, dismiss its existence.

Yes, they are comparable. The fact that such a frog wouldn't be able to live in the desert is irrelevant, as we're not saying that Bigfoot would be able to live in a network of lakes, nor that Nessy would be able to live in the North American forests.

I compared them as habitats relating to the specific animals, not environments as a physical whole.

 

Dude, reread what you said.

"It is only proof if a conclusion can be reached upon whether it's fake or not. Seeing as there is none, it's not proof."

How does that not apply to Bigfoot?

As for the analysts, firstly I don't recall saying that and would like to see a quote, but secondly they don't need to get together and discuss it, just as movie critics don't all have to all watch the same screening of a movie and sit down an discuss it afterwards. A conclusive answer comes when professional analysts, as a whole, have come to the conclusion that it's fake, or true, or whatever. If some are saying it could be true, others are saying it could be false, others saying it's definitely true, others saying it's definitely false and others being unable to come to a conclusion, then it's inconclusive, just like the Patterson video.

Mind giving an example?

If that was the case then the Russians would have discovered it was a hoax when they landed on the moon. They definitely wouldn't've gone along with the United States' hoax, especially at that stage in history.

Also, where do you suppose all the money went then? A hoax wouldn't have nearly cost what the mission cost.

I'm not assuming, they're assuming, and incorrectly at that. Firstly they're assuming that it is a descendant of the animal they're saying it is, and secondly, they're saying that it'd be our closest relative, where, if it was what they assumed, it would not possibly be closer to us than chimps. Seriously, these are the 'professionals' who are doing all this research. No professional who was worth his weight in pebbles would say something like that.

And believe it or not, no, I wasn't analysing the episode. If you want their conclusion just watch the last bit again. There's very little that's not immediately dismissed, and that that isn't is by no means evidence of its existence.

No, it did matter. The second 'paragraph' simply did not relate to what I said before. 'Regardless' doesn't mean something doesn't matter. I mainly use it as a segue between points.

Slow down, dude. You're jumping the gun, and you're not actually using my logic there.

Firstly, I recall he said that primates' feet differ from humans, not all feet differ from each other, so having ridges differing to that of humans and primates doesn't prove that it's something we haven't discovered.

Secondly, if someone were to set up a hoax as elaborate as that, they'd have to know something about the anatomy of the foot, so obviously wouldn't've have just made a footprint shape with toes attached. To put it simply, the ridges are not proof that it's of an undiscovered specie.

Lastly, the correspondence of the size of the footprint found to the size of Bigfoot doesn't prove that the footprint's authentic or that Bigfoot exists, either, because if it was a hoax then they obviously wouldn't've made them the size of baby feet.

That's not the point of the citations. The point is so that you can see whether what you've just read is correct or not. If you simply went to the link, you'd see that it was. Look, here's the link:

http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html

Again, the point isn't that it's sited, and therefore must be true... The point is that you can go to the site and see for yourself that it's true.

Also, I just noticed that the Bigfoot page on Wikipedia is protected, so no, not everyone can edit it.

Well at least we're back on topic now, haha.

 

This sucks. If I reply to Overmind, it'll take even more time. If I don't reply to him, you will all say that I ignored him, which I clearly did not as I'm writing this now. So I hope that Overmind, in my reply to ItzaHexGore, I'll address some of your points as well. I'd do it if I had time, but I've got a lot of work which us why I didn't respond in the last few days.

NON-TOPIC DISCUSSION

I didn't expect to drop it in the other thread. Where did I say that?

The thing is though, I was arguing with you, a moderator. So other moderators may have seen that as more of an offensive argument and therefore lead to it's lock.

FFS I did understand it. You kept bringing up the same thing about blood can be blue and how can I not understand it if after every one of my posts, you posted about blood can be blue.

So you're saying that even though people who chose blue because they thought it was blue, are correct even if they didn't know pure blood was blue. I'll give you another example. If I asked a group of three year olds, "What's 1+1?" and they say all sorts of random numbers and eventually one of them gets to 2 in their guessing, did he actually know the correct answer? No, he may have gotten the correct answer, but he didn't know what it was.

Well then why don't we just backtrack a few pages to one of your posts. Who played the bigger part? And I've already dropped another quote already. Have you been doing the same?

...I accept. There! Happy? I've been trying to work something out with you so we wouldn't have to drop everything at once. Which was to drop one or more of the quotes every time we posted. Also, it kind of was you who turned this into three posts. You quoted every one of my sentences so I'm forced to reply or else I'll be accused of ignoring the points again.

OMG. Stop saying stuff is irrelevant. If it's irrelevant then don't reply... Also, I'm sure Overmind only posted because I said that we were the only two people still active on this thread.

No, I'm saying that if I hadn't put those punctuation marks, you wouldn't have interpreted it as playing the victim. That's the reason why you made that gigantic post. That sh*tstorm as Major Willy put it.

Okay. If they aren't being blown out of proportion, then it isn't necessary for you to be cussing.

Yes, it did kill me. When I click the thing to look at what I say, it only takes me to the page on what I said. Using the find feature didn't help much either.

Before you get mad at me, look over what I said carefully. I said the message was, not that it was exactly what you said. So here.

Acting out of line?

Uhhh... because, like I said neither of us will want to instantly drop everything. That's why I wanted for us both to drop one or more of the quotes every time we posted.

Well, I didn't disagree either. The problem with what you said is that we are each waiting for the other to drop it all. And that's why I said to drop one or more quotes every time we posted.

Okay, reply if you want, but please just don't quote everything... If there's some stuff where arguing isn't necessary anymore, you could just skip it I guess.

BIGFOOT

So if it doesn't live in the forest, then where do you think it will live? Then there, it's height could be an advantage.

Uhhh... the quote messed up again. That was you saying it but it didn't quote it in my reply.

I know that, but I was saying are you a scientist? No, so don't think that you know exactly how Bigfoot came to be. That was what I meant.

Only a possibility because there are not enough people out there to go out and do an official, thorough study of possible Bigfoot evidence.

I'm saying that they don't have use for the pouch but they still have it. So Bigfoot may not have use of it's height, but it may still have it. And like you said, evolution takes millions of years, so millions of years ago, Bigfoot's height was useful and it just hasn't had enough time for the height gene to go away yet.

And so they did. Bigfoot. That's why you don't have orangutan sightings in California.

And yet us humans have been growing taller and we really don't have much use for it other than grabbing things off a shelf. Bigfoot may not have had any use for the height, but maybe it's mutation just never went away.

Even if we don't see them, that doesn't mean they don't see us.

 

They also said that the understanding of biomechanics back when the film was taken, was too primitive for someone to be able to plan that.

...How do you know?

We drove them away from their original habitat, which is why they moved to the forests, which is why it doesn't make sense for them to have the immense height. They probably lived out in the open, and when us humans came to America, they were afraid of us and hid. In their original habitat, they would have had use of the height. It makes sense.

The fact that they...? What happened? Did you fall out of your chair or something?

Like I said above, maybe us humans drove them away from their original habitat where they actually had use of the height.

Well, I'm not an idiot... Exactly, they had use for it a long time ago, but now they don't and the gene just hasn't gone away yet. As I said above, we probably drove them to the forests where they would have no use of their height.

Ummm doesn't your first sentence contradict itself? I'm saying people may not have had the courage, or simply didn't know what it was, to report it to people before the Patterson video was publicized. Because then it would be more believable and they wouldn't be labeled as crazy because they have something to back it up. I think that the increased reports in sightings immediately after the Patterson video came out, were true but not many of the ones after. Sorry if my writing seems confusing.

So the moon landings would be inconclusive.

Well what about the motion of the knees while it walked. I certainly can't do it the way the supposed Bigfoot did in the video, and I'm sure it would be extremely hard for anyone to do it for that amount of time. And, the person would have to be on stilts while doing it because of Bigfoot's height.

A single piece of evidence for Bigfoot? Where have you been this entire thread? It's all about evidence of Bigfoot...

How exactly would that go against the Patterson video? The analysts in the video I showed you analyzed the videos. They even got an actual human to race against the speed of the supposed Bigfoot. You can't simply label it as inconclusive. I understand you can't tell that it's true, but it's still worth something.

So footprints, sounds, and the gait of the animal in the Patterson video isn't anything conclusive? They still found something they can later use if anyone ever finds other possible Bigfoot evidence. They can compare it to each other and see if they match or differ.

Exactly, they didn't say that. So they probably wanted to ruin his reputation and since Patterson was dead, he can't do anything about it.

Yes, it was. A duck's bill on an otter like body that laid eggs. Pretty absurd if you ask me. Same with Bigfoot. People may think it's a hoax, but then one day if someone actually assembles a team to go out and search for Bigfoot and finds it, then it would be believed.

But that's the scientific community. They come at things with a skeptic's point of view. They don't think that "Oh, just maybe this thing we can't prove false is evidence of Bigfoot." They go like you and say ,"Oh, that's too bad because it's inconclusive." If they didn't discard everything, they might be able to piece together the mystery of Bigfoot.

Because they just haven't gone out and searched. They automatically believed that since one piece of evidence was hoaxed, the entire idea of Bigfoot must be a hoax. And because of that, they will never go out and search because of this idea that Bigfoot is just a story.

But that's the problem. You discard every other factor. You forget that a frog needs water and therefore would never survive in a desert. It could only survive in wet distributions. And, in a desert there is not much food for the frog to consume. Nessy wouldn't be able to live in a forest. Nowhere to swim. A forest and a lake don't compare that much to each other.