Bigfoot

You keep refusing to talk about what's being discussed, and eventually broke down and started complaining about how everyone's flaming you and not Psi. How is that showing that you want to talk about Bigfoot exactly? If you did want to talk about him, you'd be discussing what's been raised.

• Insular dwarfism.
• Other cryptids.
• Similar 'evidence' on Mars.

It was the same in your blood thread. You preferred to talk about how other people were ruining your thread instead of what was being discussed.

How about replying to what's being said then?

And seeing as stating that those videos are inconclusive is rebuttal, and can only be put forwards if you bring it up as evidence, then clearly you are just saying the same thing over and over. The reason why we keep saying it's inconclusive is because you keep saying it's evidence. It's not. Drop it and move on.

I've acknowledged that there's a possibility of Bigfoot existing. If you'd read I've been writing, and it's becoming more and more apparent that you're not, you'd have read that. However I have also said that, although there's a possibility, there's no reason to believe that it's true based on what we know at the moment.

Even you? You say that like you're the most sceptical guy in the world. You seem to be forgetting that you also said you believed in ghosts and other paranormal events.

And just for the reckon, I don't snap and go wild when you say that he could be real. I snap and go wild when you ignore everything that's been said, state the same old crap over and over, blame others for what you are doing to your own threads, act all self-righteous and play the victim.

 

bigfoot is my dad and hes gonna protect

MEEE

 

Thanks for your dad's protection!

 

Obviously I would like to talk about Bigfoot but then every single time in your post, there's at least one insult in there. So you're saying I should just take those insults?

Well there was a kind of a good reason for that...

Well, you are also saying the same thing over and over again by instantly dismissing the evidence as faked. If it's inconclusive, like you said, you can't say it's fake either. So maybe you should drop it and move on as well?

Then don't instantly dismiss it as faked.

And you seem to be forgetting that I had said not every single unexplainable thing makes it a ghost.

Yay, more personal insults!

 

Firstly, most of what I've said has simply been the truth. You do play the victim, you do inappropriately blame others, you do act self righteous and you do ignore what's being said. If you don't like it, simply comment, and move on. If you'd stick to the issues and talk about Bigfoot, why would anyone keep saying it?

Dude, YOU ARE STILL COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHERS. This is EXACTLY what I've been talking about... How can you not see that?

And as for that thread, YOU were the one who got it locked. I've already told what you'd done to get it locked.

Dude, I'm saying the same thing over and over because you're saying the same thing over and over. I cannot raise the issue of the evidence being inconclusive if you don't bring it up as being faked.

And no, inconclusive evidence is of no more value than evidence that's confirmed to be fake. It's only of use to analysts, who in this case were not able to reach a conclusion, so it remained inconclusive. It's of no more value than not having any evidence at all. Now if there wasn't any evidence at all about Bigfoot, would you believe in it? Nope, because you wouldn't've heard of it.

I'm not. It's inconclusive, and it's of the same value.

That's irrelevant. The fact is that you do believe in them, so it's hardly the most backed-up statement on the forums.

No, that's what you have been doing. Like it or not, it is what you've been doing.

Now, in that post, you continued complaining and brought up the old issues about the inconclusive evidence again. How can you complain that we keep bringing up the fact that it's inconclusive when, even when we tell you it's because you're repeatedly bringing it up over and over again, you keep bringing it up over and over again!

What about the issues raised? Why do you keep ignoring them and why do we have to badger you, and ask in over three consecutive posts, before you'll consider replying?

• Insular dwarfism.
• Other cryptids.
• 'Sightings' on Mars.

 

Who else could of caused the pearl harbour bombing? Japan? thats crazy talk!

(JK!!!!)

 

Irrelevant? But you brought it up so it as a point against me so it must be relevant. I do believe in them, yes, but not that every single unexplainable thing is a ghost.

I didn't argue with myself on that thread.

I did comment, and you commented more...

Well so have you! You have a way more insults at me than I do at you.

We? I did consider replying, but I couldn't think after all that other crap above the main point of the thread.

You want a reply, fine. Insular dwarfism. Evolution took millions of years, so wouldn't this process of growing smaller also take an extremely long time? So it would be extremely long even for Bigfoot to shrink enough so that it can hide itself better.

What other cryptids are you talking about specifically?

Seriously, why do you bring this up. You bring up this stupid point to make me look like a fool in your next post. I'm going to say that if the "sightings" on Mars, were true, wouldn't we all know about this? Also, those things look like an illusion just like the supposed face on Mars.

 

I'm not saying the fact that you believe in ghosts is irrelevant, that being the point I brought up, I'm saying that not thinking every unexplainable thing is irrelevant, which is what I'd said was, because it is. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Firstly, neither did I.

Secondly, you were the one who started going on about how Nikzad's avatar showed that girls were sluts.

Thirdly, since the lock you've been complaining about how your popular thread was locked. How's it going to be popular if nobody's discussing anything? Simply discussing or arguing does not lead to a thread being locked.

Comment and move on. Yes, you commented, but you didn't move on to say anything about what was actually being discussed.

I've been ignoring everything that's being discussed? I've been stating the same old points over and over? I've been blaming others for what you did to your thread? I've been acting self-righteous? I've been playing the victim? I've consistently been complaining about how my threads were locked in other threads?

I have as well, have I?

Then why respond to it all? Why not just comment and move on to what's relevant? Also, it's all written it text. It's not like you've got to memorise everything that's been said and reply all at once. Take a couple looks back if you have to.

Insular dwarfism wouldn't take as long as the evolution of life, or even the evolution of a new specie. I remember hearing something recently that the average human has been found to be taller than it was a couple hundred years ago, and that would only be five to ten generations or so.

On top of that, it would have been confined to the forests for ages. It's not like we were the ones who would have pushed it back to the forest or anything. On top of that, it's not as though insular dwarfism would shrink Bigfoot, it's that it would have stopped them ever growing to that size in the first place.

All unconfirmed cryptids, keeping in mind that things like gryphons are listed as unconfirmed cryptids. Also, the Triantiwantigongalope. How can you prove it's not real?

Exactly. These things crop up all the time, and this is how most cryptids come to be. Believing in stuff like this as proof that aliens exist on Mars, or videos of strange lights as proof that aliens are visiting our planet is simply either foolish or superficial. But how is Bigfoot different?

Is it because it's famous? Nessy was famous as well, and was revealed to be a hoax, but despite this, some people do genuinely believe in it, believing that just because it was hoaxed, it doesn't mean it does not exist.

A similar thing happened with Bigfoot. Someone faked a whole lot of 'evidence', and despite it being revealed that it was a hoax, people are still claiming to see him. Now these 'sightings' are, just like most 'alien' videos and the picture of a Bigfoot on Mars, are simply illusions and whatnot, but a lot of them are also, just like Nessy, hoaxes.

Now, if it's ridiculous to believe in these alien videos, if it's ridiculous to believe in the Bigfoot on Mars picture, and if it's ridiculous to believe in Nessy... Why believe in Bigfoot? Bigfoot's existence is based off the same evidence as these other occurrences. Why is it different?

And no. For your info I do not post stuff like this to make you look like a fool, I post stuff like this to prove a point. Q.E.D.

And it's good to see that you addressed the issues this time. Notice how, after that, and assuming it's continued and that what was said at the beginning isn't blown out of proportion, there is no longer any reason why this thread should be at risk of being locked. If there's no-one throwing the blame at others, no-one ignoring what's being said and no-one talking, much, about the thread specifically, there's no need to lock it. Stick to the issues and keep the conversation going, and you've got a killer thread.

 

about the other cryptids: none of them (xcept nessie) have been sighted as much as the giant ape(sasqwatch, yeti, bigfoot) which gives them a little more credibility


im not saying it does exist, i am saying the chance is bigger then that of the gryphon and the other triwankielope thingie

 

Eh. I'm a little skeptical as to the Loch Ness Monster. I mean... How long ago was the first so called "sighting" of Nessie? And Loch Ness is what, 21.8 Square Miles? When you've got something ( apparently ) akin to a Plesiosaur swimming around in a Lake, wouldn't you expect some better Pictures than what we've got? Clear photographs? Now, if there were such rumours of a Nessie-like creature living in the sea, then that is far more believable.

 

It's believed to have been living in a network of lochs in Scotland, not just Loch Ness. And, as it's already been said, it's been confirmed to have been a hoax.

 

actually on that expedition, there was a radar blip that wasnt there when they returned


just saying

 

Btw, you're gonna hate me for this but i couldn't resist Temp_L

Like my signature??

 

I don't know if they exist.......

 

... your saying that Jon is stupid? me no think that Jon will like that.

 

Um... mind clarifying that statement for me...?

.

But you pressed the subject.

I'd like to see where I said it was popular. So it's better to have a raging fight in a thread that gets locked than to have no discussion at all?

You are exaggerating too much. I didn't ignore everything. And yes, you have been stating the same points over and over. I'm not acting self-righteous... I could say the same about you. Since where did I say exactly I was the victim? The post with all those exclamation and question marks? I only asked why you don't go and flame other people instead of me. Also, they are comments referring to my old thread.

I respond to it because you responded to it. If I just skip all that stuff, you will start saying that I ignored you again.

A couple hundred years ago. So if it takes that much time for humans just to get a few inches taller, then it would take it about the same length for Bigfoot to become smaller.

Well, we didn't really start cutting down trees rapidly until the past century and a half. So it would still have had a lot of forest land.

Well, the fact that there have been numerous reports of a Bigfoot around the globe, and not just in a specific area like the Loch Ness Monster.

You are exaggerating yet again. This isn't even that close to aliens on Mars. In fact, it's a whole planet away. Look, the fact that Bigfoot is on the earth's ground, and there are pictures and videos is significantly more evidence than aliens on Mars.

Yet it is sighted in only one place while Bigfoot has been sighted in many.

The difference is that the photo of Bigfoot on the earth isn't an illusion so you cannot dismiss it as easily as you do with every single other photo of anything not proven to be real. With the alien videos like in Psionicz's thread, some of the videos showed simple dust moving through the air. That is enough to know that that is most likely not alien life. However, with the Patterson video and some other photos, there isn't much you can find in the setting that would show it has been faked.

Like I said, not all of the alien videos are ridiculous. Again, Bigfoot has been sighted in many places and not just the same place countless times. Those alien videos clearly show that it isn't reliable and the Bigfoot on Mars picture is obviously an illusion. Nessy has been proven a hoax, like you said. But where do you see that the entire idea of Bigfoot has been proven a hoax?

I addressed it because the with the previous posts, it wasn't part of the main point. Question, was I the one who blew it out of proportion? Where exactly did I blame someone.

 

The fact that you don't believe that everything that's unexplainable is caused by ghosts is irrelevant. That's what I was saying was irrelevant.

The fact that you do believe in them is. That's what I was saying was relevant.

So you expect to be able to say that about his avatar and nothing to come of it? And if you raise it as an issue, you're expected to talk about it if it's challenged.

If it was unpopular, and no-one was posting, then there's no reason to care if it's locked or not. You might not have specifically said 'popular' but you did go on about how it was a great thread, etc.

You did! Not only did you keep ignoring questions that you were specifically being asked, but there were posts where you completely ignored both me and others, and went on about something completely different.

If you mean that I've been responding to the same point that you've continually been raising, then yes, because it's a reply. You're the one who's initially raising all the previous points.

Perhaps, but there's a difference between being self-righteous while sticking to the issues and being self-righteous and doing your own thing.

You're playing the victim, not saying you are one. Complaining how I'm doing this to you and not anyone else, whining about your blood thread in other threads, this signature and your previous one... All examples of playing the victim.

Yes, those are two examples of playing the victim. And that's not called flaming. I've always stuck to the issues.

Bull****. You don't reply to everything at risk of ignoring people. In fact, you did the complete opposite before. Besides, why would I care if you don't respond to it if it's off-topic and I've already said to drop it and move on?

You're forgetting that Bigfoot wouldn't have needed to have shrunk. They wouldn't've gotten that big in the first place if they lived in that forest for all that time.

It still wouldn't have covered a large enough area for an animal to grow to that size, nor would it have had the idea environment, being the forest, to grow to that size. Just compare Kangaroos to Pademelons, Emus to Cassowaries, etc. Forest dwelling animals most often grow to be smaller than their open-land counterparts. It doesn't make sense for an animal to have grown to Bigfoot's size while living in the confines of a forest.

Actually, the fact that there have been numerous reports around the globe suggests that it isn't real, and that people are either hoaxing it, or that their mind is playing tricks on them. Divergent evolution would indicate that, if it was indeed separated by land masses, that the North American Bigfoot and the West Albanian, or whatever, Bigfoot would evolve to become two separate species, both suited to their different environments, ecosystems, climates, etc. And as I'd said before, the Loch Ness Monster wasn't confined to one area, unless you're talking about Scotland as one area, as it was supposedly part of a network of lochs, not just one.

I'm not exaggerating. The evidence of Bigfoot is of no greater value than that of Martians, aliens and other cryptids. The pictures and videos are of no more significance. They are all inconclusive. See? You brought up the pictures of videos and pictures as evidence again, so I had to reply, again.

A network of lochs isn't all that different to a forest, though if by many places you mean all around the world, then divergent evolution suggests otherwise. Also, the fact remains that Bigfoot, if it exists, is said to inhabit North-West America, not a whole lot of places. There may be reports of large unidentified species in other places, but that doesn't mean they're of the same supposed specie. For example, the Bunyip was a creature said to inhabit the Australian bush, and could be likened to Bigfoot, though obviously shares absolutely no connection.

The picture on Mars hasn't been proven to be an illusion. It, too, is inconclusive. See how there's still no reason to believe in it?

As for the alien videos, believe it or not, more exist than just the ones that Psi has linked, so, despite a lot of them obviously being dust and stuff, there are inconclusive videos out there of supposed alien life. See how there's still no reason to believe in it?

Nah, there isn't much you can find in the Patterson video that would show it's been faked, granted you exclude the ape-suit and confession that it was faked that came years later. Nah, nothing at all.

Aliens have also been sighted in many places, not just the same place countless times. Also, with the Bigfoot on Mars picture, I'm not actually saying it's Bigfoot himself. The point still stands that it remains as inconclusive evidence of Martians. Nessy has been proven to be a hoax, yes, but there are stories of other loch monsters, and Nessy wasn't said to exclusively inhabit Loch Ness. The idea about how Bigfoot was hoaxed was how it came to fame, with the findings of the Bigfoot footprints. As I said, this was how the whole thing got going, and the number of 'sightings' have skyrocketed since then. Too bad his family later revealed them to have been faked. That's how it became famous, and that's why everyone started faking sightings and reports. Seriously, don't you think it's even a little bit suspicious that the sightings shot up once everyone new about it and new it would create a buzz? It's like if someone faked Bunyip evidence back when the Europeans had just settled. Imagine how different people's attitudes would be today.

...I didn't say you blew anything out of proportion, dude. Seriously, you gotta relax. I said "assuming it's continued and that what was said at the beginning isn't blown out of proportion" then there'll be no reason for the thread to be locked. As for blaming someone...

Need I say more?

 

Okay... how is that irrelevant? It shows that I'm not a narrow minded person. I know that not every single piece of evidence is real, but I'll only say that if there is enough to prove it fake. The fact that I believe in them is relevant... What?

What about how you said to comment and move on? I commented, and you commented more.

My point exactly. None of this stuff would probably have happened. My signature would have stayed there, and we wouldn't be arguing so fiercely as we are now.

Ha! Yes! The great ItzaHexGore is wrong!

You've done that too sometimes, I'll get to it a bit later...

Okay, then will you stop replying? Here's a quote from you:

Question to you, what exactly do you think that I am a victim of?

Fine then, let's call it nonconstructive criticism. If I had taken away all those exclamation points and question marks, you wouldn't have called it "playing the victim."

Because then you'd make me look like a scared animal hiding in his den waiting for the storm to pass.

But look at us humans and gorillas. They lived and live in forest and they are still pretty big. Bigfoot could be the same story.

One word. Gorillas.

Exactly, since you suggested that the Bigfoots would have had to evolve differently to suit each of their different environments, they wouldn't all be the same species, however they would be very similar. So it could go either way of being unreal because of that fact, or more believable.

(MY turn...) Bull****! No greater value? We have way more pictures and although some are inconclusive, others may not be. How is that no greater value? The fact that there are exponentially more photos of Bigfoot than photos of the martian illusions? You cannot simply label every single piece of evidence as inconclusive. That's closed minded on your part.

Well then if Bigfoot has existed for a long time, then divergent evolution could have altered some of species very differently from than what you may find in North America. And if all the true Bigfoots have died out, then their relatives could still possibly be alive. Also, a forest is not that similar to a lake. Does a lake have trees you can climb on? Does it have twigs and logs that you could build a shelter out of?

But it's a total illusion... You can clearly see the supposed Bigfoots in the pictures... It's not inconclusive, it's not even a real life form. Some of those videos were obviously dismissable, but not all of them. No reason to believe in it? No reason to believe in them would be no videos or pictures of aliens at all. What about those pictures of the lights flying in formation? That's obvious intelligence. Also, if the person who filmed the video confessed to it being faked, why didn't you give me a link to it maybe... five pages ago? You could have saved a lot of time and effort if it was faked. Then I would no longer bring this up as a point. Also, you can't tell that it was an ape suit. Like you said, it's inconclusive, remember?

It's not really inconclusive. Even you know it's just an illusion. So has the whole idea of Bigfoot been proven faked? I didn't think so. Yes it is a bit suspicious, but show me the evidence of them saying it's faked first before I'll comment on it further. Isn't a bunyip a pokemon...? Well, the Europeans might have told stories about it and... claim they saw it to gain fame... and then they would have been hanged for faking it.

Relax... take your own advice? Okay, this argument has calmed. As for the blame...

Well... you kind of did turn this into a war...

Alright, so can you start merging the quotes? It's getting hard replying to all of those different lines each separated by a short quote.

 

Since most of this is irrelevant i'll make a few points and move on...

How long since humans lived in the forests? How long since bigfoot... oh, nvm...

Gorillas live in the jungle in the trees surround by hundred of miles of jungle and until recently, hundreds of miles more. On top of that, gorillas are still not as large as this bigfoot is meant to be.

You're right! They may not be! And the ones they aren't are conclusively fake. It has not been proven the other way.

So bigfoots the big craze right now, number of inconclusive and faked videos mean nothing, is bigfoot more believable than my spider robots solely because there's more clips on youtube?And he's not labelling everything as inconclusive, there are analysts who do these things.

Why would an aquatic species need to build a wooden shelter? Does it need to climb trees?

Some aussie myth animal thing.


Furthermore if this animal has divergent species all around the globe, why has no one with any standing in the zoological world has found any trace of it and the only sightings remain with people who it calmly walks right by when they are camping and have their handy-dandy camera ready?

 

Well, according to evolution, we did evolve from primates which did live in forests and their trees. So Bigfoot could have stemmed from that. Also, how would you know if Bigfoot hasn't been living in the forests as long as we have? Since Bigfoot seems like more of a primate than something else it could also possibly have evolved to become that large to combat other large preying animals. How long since...? I'm going to assume you meant lived in the forests. Just because you didn't know something existed before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read here for example, it's got a lot of interesting animals.

Again, Bigfoot could have also had that much time to grow to that immense stature it's seen as. Just look at the elephant or the hippopotamus.

I have a question. If say a professional looked at a photo of Bigfoot and could find nothing fake about it, does it still make it inconclusive? If nothing is fake about it, then it's closer to truth.

So what about the number of simply inconclusive and not proven to be faked videos/pictures? Also, no, it's called common sense. Would you believe more in something you are not sure is truth, or something you know is fake?

No, my point is that Bigfoot doesn't live in water like the Loch Ness Monster was said to.

That's exactly my point. Those have been proven as myths, but no one has proven the entire idea of Bigfoot as a myth. No one found it yet because no one looks... Also, those people who claim to see it are in the woods or other remote areas where there isn't much noise and other disturbances caused by humans like in a large city.

No answer? Thought so...