Bigfoot

Yeah, you can't really judge people who don't care as stupid, the poll just wouldn't work

 

Well now all of my hours of replying to ItzaHexGore have all been in vain! My minerals are gone.

Anyways, Bigfoot isn't really like a religion. It's just like a ghost, you either believe in them or you don't. There is never an I don't care because if you really didn't care, you would never think about it. Guess what you're doing right now. Yup! Thinking about it!

 

I don't care if you care that I care about saying I don't care.

 

Still a hole in that DT_L.

Okay. I'm thinking about it.

I'm one of the people who still isn't sure if Bigfoot is real or not.

I don't care.

Why?

Bigfoot as an unsolved case doesn't effect me.

 

Well if you don't care, then don't vote... If I made an "I don't care" option, then some people would vote that and then the percentages for the real voters would be off.

 

Technically, in Rojo vision, they would be real voters because they're answering your question, albeit with a terrible answer.

Really. How much of an impact would Bigfoot existing/not existing really make on Sir Average Joe's life?

 

EDIT: Ok, to put it simply, I've lost all motivation for this thread. Here's what I could be bothered typing up about a week ago, but in the time since I honestly haven't felt at all motivated to reply to the rest.

First off, thanks for waiting all that time. I owe you one. Secondly, I've decided I won't reply to points I've already discussed. Basically that just forms new chains of discussions which end up saying the exact same stuff that has already been said, and just takes up space.

The only problem with what I've said is if it happened to be wrong, which, I'd like to say, it isn't. I don't need to know exactly the way everything about evolution works to use it as evidence, as I'm not using anything I do not fully understand as proof. To give an analogy, you don't have to have a degree in Mathematics in order to use Algebra in order to solve a problem.

Firstly, this is something science can explain, and all the evidence leads to Bigfoot being made up. Secondly, it's not as simple as messing up the analysis. It's not just as though a couple of scientists looked over what they knew and dismissed it as being made up. There's an entire field of science dedicated to all this, being cryptozoology. Teams and teams of professional crytozoologists would have looked into the existence of Bigfoot, and the general consensus of the whole of all of those teams is that it doesn't exist. And please don't go on about being biased against its existence. If a cryptozoologist were to physically prove Bigfoot exists, it'd be like a palaeontologist digging up the missing link, an astronomer proving that life exists on Mars or a doctor finding a cure for cancer. They'd instantly be famous, so believe me when I tell you that, if anything, cryptozoologists would want to prove Bigfoot's existence, and wouldn't simply dismiss any leads they had.

Not true. The study of ghosts faintly falls under the study of cryptozoology, and there are even specific organisations that investigate claims and paranormal events in a reputable way, such as Mesa County Association for Paranormal Scientific Studies, and studies have also been undertaken in a number of other fields, such as neurology and even chemistry and geology. On top of that, there are numerous claims of frequent ghost sightings and other such events that have been explained scientifically, just like the refracting headlights over the lake that I talked about in your thread about the paranormal events.

And again, scientists don't simply just sit about all day and dismiss such events as being false. Science is all about finding out what we don't know, so if scientists were indeed sceptical and dismissive of such sightings and possible evidence, then science would have never progressed as it had, and is still doing.

Yes, it may only take a few generations for an average height change within a specie, but I'm talking of a couple of centimetres or so. Also, that still doesn't account for why it's still reported to being so tall. If there were tall remains found in or near the forests, but reports of much smaller ape-like creatures being seen, then yes, it would show that they've shrunk and adapted, but the fact that they're still reported as being as tall as, if not, bigger than, humans, show that it does not.

That doesn't resolve all the issues. Firstly, it doesn't account for why it's still reported as being too tall to comfortably live exclusively in the depths of forests. Secondly, there's still the issue of how they would have had to have been forcibly driven from their lands, which would obviously require contact between the two animals. Thirdly, why would they have stopped at the West coast? Why would they have not started migrating North, into Canada, and if it's because they took refuge in the forest before then, why would they have not taken refuge in forests before reaching they West coast?

I've already explained why it is, here. It's not an advantage during sexual intercourse, and even if it was, that wouldn't result to a change in the species, as both tall and short people would have had to have gotten to that stage anyway.

The advantage is based on sexual attraction and our culture. Firstly, we've eradicated any natural or outside influence. The rules of natural selection and survival of the fittest no longer apply to us because of this environment that we've superficially created around us. Secondly, it's been proven that women tend to be sexually attracted to men who are about a tenth taller than them. Not only does this lead to the taller genes being much more likely to be passed on, but it leads to women getting taller as well, as they'd inherit the taller genes of their father as well, and then go on with that same higher chance of reproducing with a taller man, and as that continues, the human race begins to grow as a whole.

Actually the original reported height of the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin film was just under two metres.

Contact would still have to be made between humans and coyotes in order to drive them from their natural habitat into a foreign one.

Also, I wouldn't be too sure about that thing on birds. We've taken in many sick birds over the years, and it is often very apparent when they're sick. It probably just depends on what the sickness is.

But you've got to wonder. If that 'expert' was so wrong when talking about probably the simplest of all facts, how can you be sure that what the others are doing is true? I mean, even if they say they're doing is correct, who knows what could have happened when doing their proper calculations. You've also got to question the validity of the program itself. I mean, even if that guy did simply make a stupid mistake, none of their editors or anything picked it up. On top of that, such programs are almost exclusively reliant on ratings, which affects who they hire and what they say. Obviously people aren't going to be as enthusiastic about a program that simply said what they found was inconclusive, so they have to sensationalise it. Inconclusive evidence becomes 'evidence that Bigfoot may exist', a simple primate becomes 'our closest relative' and as for the supposed Bigfoot imprint in the ground? After doing minimal research after watching it, I found out that it was found out to be of an elk, or similar, instead.

Not if you're so far away that you can't see the animal and the animal can't see you. To be threatening a group of animals by shooting them, or even just shooting a single animal, you've got to actually see it. Also, there would be corpses left as evidence. Furthermore, even using guns, it would be impossible to completely drive an animal from its natural habitat.

In that case there would be remaining pelts, bones and everything as evidence. On top of that, if they were hunted by the indigenous people and didn't flee, why would they have fled from the settlers?

Again, you're forgetting that I said conclusive evidence. Degraded physical evidence that cannot be analysed properly is not conclusive in the slightest. And even if degraded evidence has been found, there's still a noticeably severe lack of evidence of a large primate, such as Bigfoot, living in the North American forests.

 

No problem, you don't need to owe me one, remember all those days I couldn't reply? We're even, anyways... lost motivation? Agh.

Hey, it's natural selection. Maybe there are reasons unknown to us why Bigfoot is so big in such a small space to live? Maybe we did chase them back? Maybe they lived there all this time. We won't know until we find one and study it.

I uhhh... um.... that wasn't a day. Sorry... I just got caught up in my work and when I did have free time, I went outside to play instead of being on my computer. Understandable though, I want to enjoy my freedom before I become an adult.

Now, continuing on:

Okay, I exaggerated a bit I think. But have you seen the show Ghost Hunters? If not, go on Youtube and just search up ghost hunters and some pretty interesting videos pop up. Sorry if my answers seem short and not very detailed but I'm tired.

Maybe if we found out what it eats, we could infer why it has such a large height. Perhaps it eats only leaves that grow higher up on the ground or can only digest thin sticks? I don't know, I'm pretty sure you don't know either. We'll just have to see.

The Bigfoot maybe just didn't shrink yet. Like I said ... a couple of weeks ago... humans are getting taller and taller without much use for the height since we can just use a ladder or a stool to give ourselves a boost up to reach something we cannot reach. Bigfoot's height might be useless but it doesn't have to go away. You can't just de-evolve after you've evolved.

Ahhh... I see. Okay. I'm very interested in the part about how women are attracted to men a tenth taller than them. Very.

If it's not a hassle, can you show me or give me a link to where you got this?

Global warming might affect them. Maybe it got too hot out in the open so they moved to the forest where it is always shaded.

Well I got the bird thing from a nature show I watched. Might have been Jack Hannah if you know who he is.

Maybe because they had no place to run and hide. The indigenous people did inhabit most of the land in America didn't they? And when the colonists came, they did start to kill off the Native Americans which could have left room for the Bigfoot to leave.

Uh... I just said that the evidence was either too damaged or too contaminated... Also, didn't you see that video? Doesn't that even convince you even 1%?

Yay done.