Point blank question: Have you seen it?
Point blank question:
LMS uses or not information obtained from eyewitnesses' reports?
You seem to have misunderstood me. The platypus was thought to be a hoax until it turned out to be real.
How long it took for this mistake to be discovered? Was the evidence presented under circumstances similar to those surrounding bigfootery? How many platypus hoaxes happened? How many platypuses with red glowing eyes were reported? Were there platypus sightings recorded across most of North America?
Coelacanths, giant squids, okapis, gorillas, giant pandas... These are not analogous to bigfeet. Instead insisting on this flawed line of reasonings, footers should try to improve methodology and evidence quality.
In your opinion. There's only film, purported hair, scat, DNA, trackways, handprints, 200 casts that are available for examination and a couple of "buttprints". No one faked the scat, it just didn't yield body cells. One sample showed Asian parasites.
Repeat it as much as you want. This can not improve the (bad) quality of the available evidence. Let’s take -one more time- a quick look at the above.
1. Films- Please correct me if I am wrong, but presently available bigfoot imagery falls within one of the following- hoaxes, suspected of being hoaxes, misidentification and blobfeet.
2. Hair- after removing bison hair, synthetic hair, human hair, etc., what are we left with? Hairs which look a lot like human hair?
3. Scat- No one faked it, but it does not mean it was made by a bigfoot. Got any reliable evidence point towards bigfeet as the maker? No.
4. DNA. Correct me if I am wrong: No results were acceptable. There were always issues with contamination, degradation, etc. "Unknown mammal DNA" is not equal to bigfoot DNA.
5. Handprints, buttprints, footprints and the like similar to imagery- hoaxes, suspected of being hoaxes, misidentifications and blobfeet.
If the evidence were as good or compelling as you claim, it would have made to the pages of a Nature-like journal instead of National Enquirer. Again, instead insisting on a flawed line of reasonings, footers should try to improve methodology and evidence quality.
And all those sightings. You may not like "anecdotal evidence", but it's evidence nonetheless.
Oh, LAL, its weak evidence... One more time, instead insisting on a flawed line of reasonings, footers should try to improve methodology and evidence quality.
Oh, I think that's been done.
No. The bulk of the evidence poits towards fakery and misidentifications.
The evidence suggests there are bodies to found and one day brought to those scientists still alive who stare into the camera and say, "Bring me a body and then I'll look at it."
No. The evidence suggests there are no bodies to be found.
It would be very good if you could avoid mischaracterizations like the "bring me a body". It is not real. The reality is "bring us reliable evidence" and "let’s see if the evidences these people are presenting are reliable".
Not everything fossilizes; you know that. It was "common knowlege" the African Rift Valley was the cradle of mankind until someone thought to look in Chad. No fossil is found until it's found.
There may be fossils somewhere. There could be whole sasquatches (if they didn't get blown to bits) under St. Helens ash. The fact that none have been found yet doesn't mean they aren't there.
Speculations. Speculations can not substitute hard evidence.
Not to mention, that there may not be anything. Actually it seems there is anything. And it is not because poor preservation odds.
Giganto has size and location going for it, but there are several other possibilities, including a subspecies that reverted to a bipedal way of going. (The consensus now is that bipedalism preceeded k-w and fist-walking.)
Nope.
Gigantopithecus only have size. Location and ecology are wrong; anatomy is most likely also wrong. The fact is that the fossil record does not support bigfoot. The rest is speculation.
Is there some reason they couldn't?
The point LAL, is that we have no evidence that they did. It is an example, an analogy to show you why baseless speculation can not and must not be used to back a claim. "May happened" can not support "happened", especially when the "may happened" and the "happened" have very shaky foundations.
We already established the beds in the PNW were the wrong age. Fossils of grassland dwellers don't say much about forest dwellers.
LAL, we have not established the above. Here we go again, one more time...
1. Bigfeet sightings distribution is not restricted to PNW, so unless you can provide a very good reason to exclude sightings from the rest of North America, this is the first hole in your argument.
2. The second hole: there are Pleistocene fossils from PNW. I posted links to them before. Use the search function to find them.
3. Bigfootland has opportunities for preservation of remains of forest-dwelling creatures. Note that if this forest x grasslands line were correct, by now we would not know the gigantopithecus genus.
The only thing presently established is that the fossil record does not support bigfoot. The rest is nothing but speculation.
Try to find teeth in a forest. Be my guest.
Oh, the "no bear carcasses" strawman again... The problem is that I've been there, I've done that and I've found... And I also know other people who did the same. This line is wrong LAL.
I know there were no excavations going on in one of the "hottest" spots in the nation when I lived there.
Check item #1 some lines above.
Forget museums. There may be a bigfoot vertabra doorstop in a Canadian cabin that someone mistook for a rock.
Speculation. Nothing but speculation and wishfull thinking.
In other words, if we don't know it already, don't bother to investigate.
Okay.
Once again, it would be nice if you could avoid misrepresenting arguments.
Using a speculation (and a very loosely-based one) to back a claim (and a claim which is not backed by reliable data) is not serious investigation.
Another problem is that the evidence has been investigated and found not enough to support the claim. The problem is that the evidence was found to be of poor quality, always entangled with hoaxes and hoaxers and the package built with several methodological flaws.
If bigfootery wants to be taken seriously, it must leave the emotional baggage and attachments behind, dump the bad datasets, flawed methodologies and break all the links with the hoaxers, crackpots and hucksters.
If someone should lay a bigfoot body on a slab I'm sure there will be those who will try to figure out how the "enthusiasts" genetically engineered the sumbitch.
That's quite an exaggeration and you know it.
Anyway, recently a bigfoot body was produced by "enthusiasts". And we all know what was the outcome of that genetic engineering program.
Quoting Radiohead...
"just 'cause you feel it doesnt mean its there"
