Bigfoot

... I told you, when I tried to quote what you said, I must have missed it and it didn't quote it. It was you who actually 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."

Sorry if it caused trouble for you.

Here. 8th quote down.

Well, the only thing is that a group of people haven't really came together, analyzed it, and publicly announced their conclusions. That video I showed you doesn't really count because not many people know about it.

Forests with no trees and deserts with water. That's exactly what happens when you discard all other factors in an environment. Bending reality to your liking.

So then when we actually do get real professionals to analyze the video (which will probably be never because they think it's a hoax) we can actually say something. Well, they do have all that equipment. I don't think a normal person would be carrying that around in their house.

Yes... it does. What other animal other than primates has feet shaped like that? So how exactly would someone have been able to make all those ridges so precisely without leaving any trace of them doing so?

It doesn't prove Bigfoot exists, yes. I never said that it did. I said that it was evidence to further the case of Bigfoot. Like I said right above, how can someone fake that and not leave any trace. And, how can they get the imprint that deep into the ground?

Just because someone said so doesn't make it true. Why have I never heard of the confession? I don't remember seeing it on the news either, and I watch the news everyday. Isn't there an online news article that you could link me to showing the confession?

Yes! I finished! It's like a marathon... the last stretch is always the hardest because you know you are so close to the finish and yet you still have a ways to go.

 

I'd just like to make a last response to this. Believe it or not, I can't make an irrelevant statement relevant. On top of that, there's no reason to drop anyone on account of someone saying something irrelevant. Like just then, the fact that not as many people are participating in this thread is irrelevant to the fact that you ignored them earlier. It may be relevant in the context that it could have caused them to leave, but it's irrelevant to whether you did or not.

Height is an adaptation to living in large, open spaces. It may be an adaptation for other environments, but that's the main one. If it did evolve such an advantageous height, then it would have to be living in the plains, and if it had, then we would have noticeably driven it back to the forests, as I've been explaining later on in the conversation.

There're three issues with that...

Firstly, 'all roses are flowers but not all flowers are roses'. Not sure if you're familiar with that expression, but to put it in context, all scientists, or biologists to be more precise, need to have a strong understanding of evolution, but not all people who have a strong understanding of evolution need to be scientists. Whether I'm a scientist or not is irrelevant. What's relevant it that I have a strong understanding of evolution.

Secondly, you're not a scientist either, so it's hardly a point you can use against my argument. However, as I said in my first point, that's irrelevant, as you don't need to be a scientist to have an understanding of it. I would like to add, however, that I'm a student of science, and have done evolution in years nine and ten in Science, and year eleven, and just starting it this year, in Biology.

Thirdly, if you're only going to take the word of a scientist, the scientific community, being the cryptozoologic community in this case, denies the existence of Bigfoot, using evolution as one of their points.

Not exactly. Though that's an interesting spin you've put on it. The fact that there's little evidence of Bigfoot is credited to the fact that there's nothing to find, not that there aren't enough people looking for it. Tonnes of people, both professionally and casually, go and have gone looking for evidence of Bigfoot. The sheer lack of evidence is another of the reasons that the scientific community denies its existence. Believe it or not, they don't do that if no-one's actually been out looking, regardless of how sceptical they are.

Don't have a use for their pouches? It's the equivalent of a pregnant woman's uterus and mammary glands, all in one. It's where the baby is raised as a foetus. Not having it is like, as I said, a woman not having a uterus, or an egg not having its shell.

And while evolving to have a reproductive system as complex as marsupials would take millions of years, evolving in terms of height does not. In fact, noticeable height changes can be observed within a few generations.

That's just a statement. There's absolutely nothing to back it up, nor is there anything to even suggest that it might be a possibility. The orang-utan analogy is completely off, and for both our sides, as not only have there never been any in that region outside of zoos, but no group of primates evolved into them, or have they, others, either.

Perhaps not physically, but both sexually and within our culture, there's a huge benefit to being tall, and seeing as the need for physically needing to be tall in order to be able to survive in our environment, what with us having created our own environment and all, its need it eradicated, so falls back on sexual attraction and our culture. On top of that, it's been half predicted, half hypothesised that the human race will eventually evolve into two sub-groups, one being tall, muscular and attractive, and the other being short, fat and unattractive, purely based on people's superficiality. It was also a theme that was raised in the novel, and film, The Time Machine, or something.

A mutation of that scale and stature for Bigfoot would simply not be physically advantageous, which is what comes first and foremost in the evolution of a specie. So, yes, there is a reason for us to be growing taller, and there is not one for Bigfoot.

That's not answering the question. Would you be able to drive them back to a place they're unsuited to without seeing them? And no specie, whatsoever, is so scared that it would run off to completely unfamiliar territory at the first sign of something they'd never seen before on the horizon.

You don't need any knowledge of biomechanics to put on a gait like that. Seriously, just tell some kids to act like monsters and you'll see what I mean. They certainly wouldn't simply continue walking as humans normally do, nor would someone in a monkey suit have if they were performing a hoax like that.

By looking at its physiology. No creature like that is adapted to living in the forest. It's tall, it's upright, it's huge... As I've said, it's a logical absurdity. There's nothing that would even suggest it's suited to living in the forest.

As I've been saying, we would have only been able to have driven them back if we'd've physically encroached upon their territory. That is not the case.

And no creature's so timid that it completely flees its home environment at the sight of something new on the horizon. Especially when that exact same thing has supposedly been seen multiple times by humans, without reacting in any such way.

Hmmm... Must have either left and moved onto the next point or accidentally deleted it while reformatting my post. Regardless what I, think, I was going to say, was the fact that they presented their inconclusive findings as 'proof' of something that hasn't been discovered yet, and went on about how its ancestors could have existed alongside homo erectus, which for some reason makes it our closest relatives despite the fact that humans were not the only species to evolve from homo eretus, itself, proves that they weren't exactly a hundred percent truthful. Especially when considering that they're a small offset of the scientific community, which, as a whole, deny the existence of Bigfoot. And no, that small offset weren't the only ones who did a smattering of research.

Hope that's satisfactory.

As I also said before, we would have had to have physically encroached upon its territory, and they wouldn't simply flee to the woods when their plains were inhabited by yet another species. On top of that, given the time that humans have inhabited America, being tens of thousands of years, and given their dire situations, they would simply not be the size they are now.

 

Firstly, although there has been evidence, there hasn't been any conclusive evidence. Secondly, I said physical evidence. You know, stuff like bones, hair, faeces, etc.

Dude, you've got to be ****ting me. You were the one who said it went against the Patterson video. I was agreeing with you. Just follow the conversation back a few replies. In fact, here. Fourth quote up, or something.

Firstly, they did not prove that the footprints belonged to anything. They just found that it was different to that of humans and primates. It's not evidence of Bigfoot.

Secondly, they did not prove that the sounds belonged to anything. There was just nothing that it definitely was. It's not evidence of Bigfoot.

Thirdly, they did not prove that a person was not able to walk in that same manner. They just found that it wasn't the way people naturally walked. It's not evidence of Bigfoot. On top of that, the gait of the creature in the other video was completely different, and practically identical to that of a human.

Lastly, finding something to prove later on isn't evidence of Bigfoot. I mean, it's a win-win situation for believers. Either it does match, which is suddenly conclusive proof for some reason, or it doesn't, and you can simply choose either to back up your argument.

'Exactly'? If it was 'exactly' the case, then it doesn't make sense. Them coming out and saying it's fake is exactly the same as what happened with the guy who started the whole Bigfoot thing back in 1958. The only difference is that there obviously isn't any physical proof, unlike the other guy's stone footprints.

Regardless, this is simply pitting inconclusive evidence against inconclusive evidence, so doesn't help prove anyone's point.

Dude, there's a massive difference between an absurd creature and a logical absurdity. The platypus may be absurd, but it's not even close to being a logical absurdity.

And are you seriously suggesting that no-one has actually assembled a team to go out and search for Bigfoot? What, are you joking or have you just skipped straight to trolling?

Please, dude, try not to just make up **** about the scientific community. They're not paid to be sceptical, ok? If a generalisation had to be reached, then they would be more open to everything than they would be sceptical. No progress would be made if they were that sceptical. So they're not all sitting at home thinking that it's easier to say it doesn't exist, ok? They're cryptozoologists, so they're not going to simply pay no interest to the biggest phenomenon in their entire industry, ok? Also, do you realise how much money there would be in Bigfoot? Prove its existence and they'd be immortalised, and would probably never have to work again.

And, as I may or may not have said, they do go out on expeditions. Seriously, that's what half their argument is based on, being the fact that there's so little physical evidence, etc. On top of that, I've already spoken about scientific teams who have played the devil's advocate and actually try to prove its existence, like George Schaller, which is an uncommon stance that basically suspends the conclusion that it's fake until all possibilities have been exhausted, but they have still come to the same conclusion. Seriously, this is all in those few paragraphs I sent you.

You're simply being slanderous now, so please refrain from making such ludicrous allegations in the future. They're simply lies. Nothing more.

No they do not. I've said this already, and for the last time now. What you're saying is pure slander. Next time you make an accusation like this, back it up with something real.

Did you read what I just said?

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

It's the habitats relating to the specific animals that were originally being compared, not the physical environment of each habitat. They're two very different things. You're still going on about water and food, which is the physical environment. The analogy is that Nessy is to a network of Scottish lochs as a Bigfoot is to the North American forests. That's all I can say. If you can't discuss this in the right context, then don't discuss it at all.

So do you see no validity in it whatsoever?

That's not how it's done, dude. As I said, them needing to do that is like movie critics needing to all watch the same screening and all discuss what rating it should get afterwards. And the point remains that the general consensus is that it's inconclusive, so what's bringing them all together to discuss it going to achieve?

I've never said anything like that. You just don't understand the context. You're comparing the physical environments, not the habitats in relation to the creatures. Just to give another example, you can compare the similarities of a fish's and bird's habitat in relation to the specific species, but you can't say that their physical environments are the same.

Firstly, you're just continuing to dump **** on the scientific community for absolutely no reason and on absolutely no grounds.

As for the equipment, so what? I have a basic knowledge of the human body in relation to diseases, but putting on a lab-coat and wearing a stethoscope doesn't make me a doctor.

No other animal having those footprints do not mean they're prove of Bigfoot's existence. Seriously, how can you not see that? Secondly, who's to say it would even take that long? And any traces of them doing so would have been worn away by the environment. Even if the groves had been really crude, given a day, there wouldn't be anything to say that it was definitely man-made.

It's a very selective scope of the evidence that furthers the case of Bigfoot. I mean, you irrationally accuse scientists of being sceptical, but you believe the word of people who would be in on the hoaxes. What makes the scientists have a biased viewpoint that doesn't make the supposed witnesses have a biased viewpoint?

And what's so challenging about imprinting footprints in the ground?

 

Again, did you read the article? You're right, a confession does not make it true, which applies to all reported sightings of Bigfoot you may realise, but I think this:



Does... Especially when they match these:



And you're right. I mean, it's not like anything you don't know about could have actually happened. That's just ludicrous. I guess this article by the Sydney Morning Herald must have never have been issued, and must have just been a hoax because they're all sceptics. It must have been the case for this article in the New York Times as well. Same goes for the original link I'd shown you, as well as Google and Wikipedia...

And yeah, sarcasm.

 

First off, thank you so much for dropping those pointless debates. Secondly, I finally have enough time to reply to the posts you made, so here goes:

Well, if so then why are humans increasing in average height? We live in houses, they count as closed spaces. We don't have predators, and disease affects any height. So why the height increase in humans?

I know what the expression means even though I haven't heard that exact one. Well, you may have a strong understanding of evolution but it doesn't mean you know exactly the way it works.

And yes, I'm not a scientist, but that's irrelevant ( =D) to the point. (And in case you say it is relevant) The point is that yes, you have have a strong understanding of evolution, but you don't know it's exact way of working.

Well, there are some things science still can't explain yet. Maybe they just messed up with the analysis of Bigfoot's evolution, or... they never actually sat down and went through it thoroughly, or went through the possible reason it's so big and living in wooded areas.

Ugh... People who are skeptic of ghosts, don't go out and go test it out. And if they do, it's just at some supposedly haunted area when there are real haunted areas out there. Just like Bigfoot skeptics. They go out and search at the hoaxed area and their already low belief in Bigfoot will drop even more.

And so, a few generations is all it takes for Bigfoot to grow smaller. Then what if Bigfoot was even more larger a few hundred years ago than what the sightings and footprints taken recently predict? Also, think about what I'm about to say next, it makes sense.

So, like you said, noticeable height changes can be observed within a few generations. What if before Europeans arrived on North America, Bigfoot lived on open plains. It would also explain some of the depictions of a large ape-like creature in Native American folklore/myths. Then, when the Europeans arrived, they settled in the east, the Bigfoot were afraid of them since they had fought the Revolutionary War and started to migrate towards the west. Eventually the now dubbed Americans pushed them all the way to the west coast, which would explain why most legitimate sightings are in the west side of the United States. Then when the Bigfoot had nowhere left to hide, they went to the forest where they had no use of the height and now they are slowly growing smaller, according to insular dwarfism.

Sexually? What use does a height advantage have in reproduction? Better positioning..? Another thing, how do we need to be tall to survive in our society? It's not like we're more likely to get attacked by someone. I mean, hold a gun to a muscular person and how will that muscle help him there? One move and *bam*.

I've watched the movie and it was pretty good, but that doesn't mean we will turn out that way.

Read the huge thing I wrote above.

So have you tried walking on stilts with a large stride and a circular motion with your knees? I don't think someone would waste years of their life to perfect the motion to look genuine.

Well, it's like the wolf (or was it the coyote), it's more afraid of us than we are afraid of them. Also, did you know that when a bird is sick, it doesn't show any sign? That's because it knows a predator would targeting it. It can't show any sign of weakness. So maybe it's the same as Bigfoot. It can't show signs of fear.

Well, I don't think the part about them may being our closest relative to be true, but they still found evidence of a possible undiscovered primate. Out of one, many. While the scientific community as a whole may deny it, the individuals that make it up still have differing opinions.

If you shoot a gun at an animal, does it run, or does it stay and fight? It depends on the animal doesn't it?

Also, about it's size, maybe the Native Americans hunted them for their for or just for sport which forced them to grow to a large size.

They have, it's just either too damaged or too contaminated to be analyzed completely and thoroughly.

Uhhh... oops? And let's not start the unnecessary cussing again...

 

I know they don't prove the exact animal of Bigfoot, but it still shows an animal unlike any other. And jeez... you said everything they found was inconclusive. I can't really argue or make any other points or you'll shoot it down like a flock of birds.

And yet in the video they still found that footprint with the vertical ridges. I don't think anyone who would fake something like that would really think about the way the ridges on the feet were.

Ugh, you're only saying that they are two different things because one of them is proven and the other is not. If they were both untrue, you wouldn't be talking like that.

Also, stop saying I'm trolling or I'll start trolling just for you.

Try not to make it up? The exact reason it's called the scientific community is because they base their things on science and go out to prove scientific things and not possibly fairy tale, myth creatures based on one, you said this, inconclusive video and a couple of inconclusive footprints. If they say it's fake, it's fake. That's why the skeptics don't go out and prove ghosts. That's why they don't go out and prove aliens, only the open ones.

And another thing, you say that he exhausts all possibilities of it being conclusive until it is all been proven not a hoax. Then that would take one giant eternity. There are endless possibilities of how it could be faked. Then every single video could be argued to be fake. Another thing... how do you know they are lies?

Know of the story The Boy Who Cried Wolf? Yeah, he lied a few times and then the last time when the wolf really came, the people didn't come to help. Same with Bigfoot. They went out, found they were hoaxes and then finally when a genuine sighting comes up, they do not go to it.

Then I guess Bigfoot can live on a lakeside...

No... not at all. After all, you're the one who said it, I just tried to quote it and must have accidentally left it out of the quotes.

They concluded in the video that it is likely there is an undiscovered primate living in North America.

That's the problem, you compare the habitats, but discard all the other factors. Allow me to quote the definition of a habitat from Dictionary.com:
"the natural environment of an organism; place that is natural for the life and growth of an organism: a tropical habitat."
Environment means the factors surrounding the specific area.

First off, fine. I've been dumping stuff on the community. I admitted it, happy? Secondly, why are so you touchy about it?

Oh so if say your house got broken into and there is a footprint in the mud. You make a cast of it and you study it and see that it doesn't match anyone in the world except for one person, me because you haven't compared it to my footprint yet. The thing is though, I'm hiding so you can't find me for confirmation. Oh well. I guess it means it wasn't me who broke into your home.

Irrationally... my accusations are valid. Heck, I can even accuse you... And believing in the word of people who would be in on hoaxes? (This is just an example do not turn this into another argument) What about religion?

And... imprinting footprint on the ground while walking like the thing in the Patterson Video? Looks pretty hard to me to walk with that much weight on the bottom of your stilts.

WTF? I read the article, I told you already. Just because one footprint was faked doesn't mean every footprint in the world was faked. This works the other way around as well. And so what if the "Bigfoot footprint shoe" matches that one random print? That guy just got the correct measurements. That's all...

 

And it's not like anything you don't know about (i.e. the existence of bigfoot) is automatically fake. Sure is ludicrous isn't it?

And stop acting like I don't read anything. Stop acting like I'm an idiot, I"m not. Sometimes my argument may suck, but that's just cause I have nothing left to say anymore cause all of my words are drowned out by your flood of arguments.

As for the news article, I seriously have never read or seen anything on the news or other media that talked about the confession.

And finally... I finished. Yay... Somehow I don't feel satisfied this time.

 

In response to concerns, no, I have not forgotten about this. It's simply that I didn't have enough spare time on the weekend to reply to this, because of an upcoming assessment block.

 

Yeah, cause people would really climb to incredible heights in the middle of the Himilayan mountains to fake a footprint.

Dont you guys find it strange that foot prints have been found in such remote places which could only have been reached with top of the range climbing equipment? Its because one or two out of the 100's of reportings on him really do point in the direction of his existance.

There is evidence to suggest that its existance is not completely inconclusive.

 

Firstly, and I'll just state this quickly, if you'd've read what's been said about Bigfoot, as well as the article you'd've have read that the footprints we're talking about are from North America, not the Himalayas, and were placed where work was being done, around the workmens' vehicles to deter thieves and vandals. So... Yeah. Nice one there.

And of course they're going to be in remote or unpopulated regions. You really think it would work if they were found on the nature strip?

And what on Earth do you mean by 'not completely inconclusive'? It's either inconclusive or it's not. If it's not, and therefore is conclusive, then it'd've been physically proven to either exist or to be made up. That's not the case. It's inconclusive. And, by the way, conclusive evidence errs on the side of cryptids. It's far easier to prove that something does exist than it is to prove it doesn't. The gryphon is a clear example of that, still being classified as a cryptid today despite it being obvious that it's a purely made up creature.

And sorry, Darktemplar_L, I'll hopefully get back to you soon. I trust you'll understand, having been in a similar situation yourself.

 

How can so much post be said about...Bigfoot.

does he exist or not?

 

Don't even ask. Some things you don't really want to know

 

Im not going to even try to read that 10 posts of 8 paragraph posts.

 

I was referring to the general argument of his existance when i was talking of the footprints found in the himilayas, not the articles you were posting, the argument of this thread does not revolve around you two and your discussions. The footprints found in the Himilayas are brilliant examples of evidence that points in the direction of such a creatures existance.

here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-wildlife-expert-Sir-David-Attenborough.html

But indeed, i worded it wrong and i agree with you, the evidence may be inconclusive in some cases, but the point i was trying to make is that there are different levels of inconclusive evidence! For example, the evidence for there being such a creature as a gryphon is near to none, so it is labelled as inconclusive, but the evidence for there being a yeti like creature is astoundingly viable, like the link i gave you. The Yeti may be inconclusive, but not to the degree of a creature like a gryphon, they're on totally different leagues.

Im sure Sir David Attenborough knows more on the subject of this creature and if the evidence justifies the existance or non existance of such a creature than all of us. So frankly im going with his opinion here.

 

Yes ItzaHexGore, I fully understand. It's okay.

Ehehe...

Exactly! I love you Renatus...

And although it may not be Bigfoot, the Yeti is still something similar. Who would go all the way up there to fake footprints anyways?

 

How can there be so much evidence for/against Bigfoot?

 

Because people take Bigfoot as a hobby.

 

you mean talk about Bigfoot as a hobby?

 

No. They take on the whole concept of Bigfoot's existence as a hobby.

 

But if we scout the whole world and we don't find it then all the people that have a Bigfoot hobby then their hobby would be turned into a religon....maybe.