Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

So have you have ever seen a bigfoot or seen any tracks yourself? Or do you get all your information from the internet

Hoo boy. Need any help getting your foot out of your mouth?

BTW, Huntster didn't call you stupid, he said it was a stupid statement. We get a lot of those from sceptics. We're used to it.

 

[SimonD]

It's been done.

According to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, scat has to be practically steaming to be of any use.

Where has it been done? Where is the body? Let me guess he got away? But they didn't follow him? Of course it so much easier to track an animal that is wounded. Why didn't they bring in some blood for a scientist to look at?

As far as steaming scats go - they use stools that have been taken out of caves in Euorpe that used to shelter Neanderthal man and worked out what sort of diet that they had

 

[RayG]

I don't think anybody is going to track a bigfoot down.

I don't think there's a tracker alive who can track down a sasquatch.

Virtually no public money has been spent on this phenomenon thus far.

Are you then advocating an illogical pursuit? If bigfoot is impossible to track, what exactly should/would the public money be spent on?

RayG

 

[RayG]

BTW, Huntster didn't call you stupid, he said it was a stupid statement. We get a lot of those from sceptics. We're used to it.

Don't worry LAL there've likely been just as many from the opposite side of the woodpile.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken some people (mostly skeptics) over on the BFF, who have argued with Rick Noll about his opinions or findings (like me), have supposedly made him feel like he's treated like dirt, and have been labelled as bullies, bad apples, critics, thugs, poppy-choppers, and meanie heads who hurl venomous, disrespectful, rude, agressive comments, and the occasional bit of garbage, from the peanut gallery.

Never once have I referred to Mr. Noll in such vile terms, but some folks have no problem painting skeptics with an all inclusive brush. It's not surprising really, when emotion is allowed to cloud the process of thinking.

RayG

 

[SimonD]

Hoo boy. Need any help getting your foot out of your mouth?

BTW, Huntster didn't call you stupid, he said it was a stupid statement. We get a lot of those from sceptics. We're used to it.

Foot out of my mouth? It was a simple question.

The word stupid should not appear in any argument - there are no stupid questions or answers. It really is the same either way - an insult driven by emontion and is not in anyway helpful in trying to resolve an argument

I'll make it real simple - unless you can provide a body of a bigfoot that has it's own unquie DNA its nothing but a myth.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You don't know squat.
If that was true, there wouldn't be any 10' brown bears alive anymore.

Are you saying no one can track a 10 ' brown bear ?

I'm saying that the reason they got that big is because nobody tracked them down up to that point, and there are a number of reasons for that fact.

And if they could they would kill it ? Why is that ?

Not everybody who tracks bears kill them.

Quote:
What I'm saying is that such sign is disregarded, attacked, and otherwise made irrelevant by those who deny such a creature exists.

Do you spend a lot of time trying to track down things you think don't exist ?

Nope.

Why do you think people like Noll, who doesn't disregard stuff like this, can't bring in a Sas ?

1) They are very rare
2) They are very reclusive
3) They are most active at night
4) Noll doesn't have much for resources
5) Noll has very little support
6) Noll has to work for a living

 

[Huntster]

Bigfoot Deniers are going to find problems with your evidence, no matter how carefully you manufacture it convincing it may be. The only way you're gonna shut them up is to bring back Bigfoot. You can bring back ten million footprint casts, and shoot miles of grainy film, but added all together, they won't have one one-thousandth the probative value of a single corpse.

Correct. Film, poop, hair, footprints, and witness reports are all evidence, but people like those on this forum will throw it out. They demand proof.

The only proof is a carcass.

With all the people who claim to have spotted BF and trailed him, you'd think someone woulda come up with some BF poop to take back to the local university lab for analysis. Yes? No?

Yes. It has been done, and in at least one instance, but a fish and game department.

Is it possible to tell an animal's species just from his feces?

Nope. And even if it was, with nothing confirmed to match it to, it comes back like the hair, DNA, and other results; inconclusive. Not a match with any known species of the region.

And the denialists dance with glee at the "inconclusive" label.

Of course, the circumstances of the feces/hair/print/sighting event where the feces/hair/print came from should be a clue, but the denialist rejects that, too.............

 

[SimonD]

I'm saying that the reason they got that big is because nobody tracked them down up to that point, and there are a number of reasons for that fact.

Facts?? I think you need to look up the definition of that word

I would have thought the number one FACT that he hasn't be caught is because he doesn't exist

 

[Huntster]

....If you really where a outdoors person like you claim you would know about tracking - but I think you are making stuff up....

I'm not Daniel Boone, but I'm an experienced outdoorsman. Got the trophies and photos to prove it, too.

And I've never hired a guide. It has all been do-it-yourself.

And I still say that the argument that "someone should be able to track down a sasquatch" is silly.

I do think a sasquatch should be tracked down with dogs...............

Still if you believe in bigfoot, making stuff up is propably not outside your area of expertise

That's real strong logic there, Einstein.

Do you really think that no one could track bigfoot?

Yup. I really do.

You can't be that good a tracker if you can't follow the footsteps of an 8 foot tall creature which leaves a size 18 footprint.

No, I'm not a very good tracker, but I'm certainly better than many.

Do you honestly think that people go around destroying bigfoot trackes so Bigfoot won't be discovered.

Do you honestly think that people go around deep in the wilderness and manufacture bigfoot prints on the outside chance that someone will see them?

You mean that there are people out there who don't want to be the very first person to bag a bigfoot?

Yup.

Me.

Clayton Mack had no intention of shooting one, either. Nor do most indigenous peoples.

As I said before there isn't an animal alive that can't be tracked.

Go track down a Anatirostrum profundorum for me, Davy Crockett.

They even count animals from out of space with satilites...

Got some evidence of that?

So have you have ever seen a bigfoot or seen any tracks yourself?

I saw a trackway consisting of several good prints, and three excellent prints in mud in the southern Sierra Nevada range in 1972 near the southern border of Sequoia National Park, along the Little Kern River drainage about a mile or so downstream from Soda Springs.

Or do you get all your information from the internet

I find the internet to be an amazing source of information.

Considering all the time I spent in libraries as a youth and young man, having so much information at the stroke of a key is absolutely wonderful.

 

[Huntster]

....As far as steaming scats go - they use stools that have been taken out of caves in Euorpe that used to shelter Neanderthal man and worked out what sort of diet that they had

That's an easy analysis.

Nobody challenged the claim that the scat was that of Neanderthals.

I guess the masses have no problem believing Neanderthal studies and claims........

 

[Huntster]

Are you then advocating an illogical pursuit?

Nope. I'm advocating a responsible pursuit, since the states and the federal government have the clear and stated responsibility of wildlife management, especially for rare creatures.

If bigfoot is impossible to track, what exactly should/would the public money be spent on?

Dog tracking, rapid response capabilities to current/ongoing sasquatch sighting events, camera traps, a survey of current fish and game biologists, and a collation/analysis of the various sighting databases in private hands would be a good, inexpensive start.

 

[Huntster]

....In fact, unless I'm mistaken some people (mostly skeptics) over on the BFF, who have argued with Rick Noll about his opinions or findings (like me), have supposedly made him feel like he's treated like dirt, and have been labelled as bullies, bad apples, critics, thugs, poppy-choppers, and meanie heads who hurl venomous, disrespectful, rude, agressive comments, and the occasional bit of garbage, from the peanut gallery.

The situation there is unfortunate, but it has repeated itself many times. People invest a lot of themselves in sasquatch research, encounter critical review of their work or get into differences with colleagues and drop out in disgust.

It's a tough field.

Never once have I referred to Mr. Noll in such vile terms, but some folks have no problem painting skeptics with an all inclusive brush.

Ray, you're a class act. No doubt about it. I've always found you to be an outstanding gentleman, and it's unfortunate that I'm not more like you.

I don't like "painting skeptics with an all inclusive brush", because (obviously) all skeptics are not alike.

I like to differentiate between a "skeptic" and a "denialist", but it appears you don't like that, either.

But it seems obvious that there are denialists out there.

 

[Huntster]

....The word stupid should not appear in any argument - there are no stupid questions or answers....

I apologize if I offended you.

It just seemed like either a stupid question or another denialist derail to me.

I'll make it real simple - unless you can provide a body of a bigfoot that has it's own unquie DNA its nothing but a myth.

There is ample evidence. It's more than a myth, but I agree that nothing but a corpse will prove to the majority of people that they exist.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm saying that the reason they got that big is because nobody tracked them down up to that point, and there are a number of reasons for that fact.

Facts?? I think you need to look up the definition of that word.

Let's enjoy this exercise together, shall we?

Fact:

–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

Now, with the definition provided, linked, and quoted, do you deny the fact that 10' bears exist?

 

[SimonD]

Now, with the definition provided, linked, and quoted, do you deny the fact that 10' bears exist?

Hunster - thanks for the apology
I see people do this to often on this forum - insulting one another - we are all adults and all arguements should be (IMO) about facts not who can create the best insult. And yes I see it in equal amounts from both sides.

I never said that I didn't believe in 10' bears (perhaps I miss read your commets??) I just want to see some proof of the bigfoot

I accept that some animals are really difficult to track, some more then others.
I accept that the territory that bigfoot is meant to live is hard to get to and is visited by very few people

But to say a creature as big (and as smelly - or so I have read) as bigfoot cannot be tracked..... I just don't see that as a valid argument

Hell, Hunster - I'd the first to say that I got it wrong if someone was to prove that it exists. But, untlil then (if ever) it is pretty hard to get past the point that no-one has ever found a living or dead 10 foot creature which lives in the forest (I am talking about bigfoot now - not bears )

 

[LAL]

Where has it been done? Where is the body? Let me guess he got away? But they didn't follow him? Of course it so much easier to track an animal that is wounded. Why didn't they bring in some blood for a scientist to look at?

You might want to check out some reports.

As far as steaming scats go - they use stools that have been taken out of caves in Euorpe that used to shelter Neanderthal man and worked out what sort of diet that they had

There was no problem in determining diet. No body cells were found.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You might want to check out some reports.

Why on earth would he want to do that ? What have the thousands of reports yielded so far ?

There was no problem in determining diet. No body cells were found.

# 4 ) Bigfoot does not leave body cells in it's poopi ..

 

[Huntster]

I never said that I didn't believe in 10' bears (perhaps I miss read your commets??)

Yup. The 10' bear deal was an example of how bears can avoid being tracked down by hunters until they get to be huge in size and very old. Indeed, some bears live a whole lifetime and die of old age. Despite lots of hunters (many of them guided by professionals), many bears avoid them.

I just want to see some proof of the bigfoot

I'd like that too, but it is not yet available.

I accept that some animals are really difficult to track, some more then others.
I accept that the territory that bigfoot is meant to live is hard to get to and is visited by very few people

But to say a creature as big (and as smelly - or so I have read) as bigfoot cannot be tracked..... I just don't see that as a valid argument

While there are reports from all over the continent, there are particular areas where sightings are of a much higher frequency. Predominate in such areas is the Pacific Northwest.

That environment has areas where tracking would be very difficult. Someone who might be an excellent tracker in other types of environments might find the PNW a real challenge.

Hell, Hunster - I'd the first to say that I got it wrong if someone was to prove that it exists. But, untlil then (if ever) it is pretty hard to get past the point that no-one has ever found a living or dead 10 foot creature which lives in the forest (I am talking about bigfoot now - not bears )

That's all true. The lack of conclusive proof up to this point is frustrating, and it leads many to deny or doubt their existence.

I believe they are very rare, very shy, primarily inhabit very reclusive areas, and are most active in the dark. This helps explain why they can avoid "discovery" by science for so long.

Again, it's not like nobody ever sees them. There are lots of reports of sightings, etc.

It's just that science as an institution hasn't recieved proof yet, and as an institution, they aren't even looking.

 

[LAL]

Fecal pellets composed of cookie crumbs and candy canes?

At any rate, I've begun planning the evaluation/exam, and hope to have it up and running shortly. I'm thinking of maybe bringing the setup to a BF-meeting if there is one near here and seeing who is willing to actually examine the specimens and render an opinion...should be interesting. This could take awhile (months or a year), but I think it'd be worth it. More as it progresses!!!

Yay! Something else to wait for. Did I miss your answer about the paper. Did you write it? Has it been published?

 

[LAL]

Don't worry LAL there've likely been just as many from the opposite side of the woodpile.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken some people (mostly skeptics) over on the BFF, who have argued with Rick Noll about his opinions or findings (like me), have supposedly made him feel like he's treated like dirt, and have been labelled as bullies, bad apples, critics, thugs, poppy-choppers, and meanie heads who hurl venomous, disrespectful, rude, agressive comments, and the occasional bit of garbage, from the peanut gallery.

Never once have I referred to Mr. Noll in such vile terms, but some folks have no problem painting skeptics with an all inclusive brush. It's not surprising really, when emotion is allowed to cloud the process of thinking.

RayG

BD accused Noll of "posturing" and "covering up"; that was about the worst I saw. There are some who seem to think "research" consists of tearing down other researchers without contributing anything of their own. BD and JimF proceeded on false information, and, to my knowlege, didn't retract.

There was more to Rick's decision than the treatment he got on the board.

I'm not sure who the "true believers", "dintewoobers" and "dyed-in-the-wool believers are supposed to be, but being insulted by mods on a Bigfoot board for taking the proponents side isn't the most fun thing in the world. One proponent stood up for himself and got banned.

I'm actually finding it friendlier here these days. At least the mud-slinging is up front and tolerated.