Merged Bigfoot follies

[Resume]

None, yet. Remember, the first chimpanzee fossils were only discovered 9 years ago, and the anthropologist that found them was at the site for ten years before she discovered them so to declare no bigfoot fossils equals no bigfoot is actually the better example of an argument from ignorance.

Of course actual chimps have been known to Europeans for centuries, to Africans for eons.

Sorry NL, but not only are there no footie fossils, there is no verified bigfoot anything save for stories. It is a legend. That's it.

 

[EHocking]

Question for you.

Of the total fossil record in North America, what percent has been found to date? Of course this is completely unknown, but I'm willing to guess there is an estimate out there. Is it 99%, or 75%, or 10%?

There is sufficient fossil evidence for anthropologists to emphatically conclude that primates went extinct on the north American continent 40 million years ago.

What was your objection?

 

[snoop_doxie]

None, yet. Remember, the first chimpanzee fossils were only discovered 9 years ago, and the anthropologist that found them was at the site for ten years before she discovered them so to declare no bigfoot fossils equals no bigfoot is actually the better example of an argument from ignorance.

But, weren't chimpanzees already known to the world before the fossils were discovered?

I certainly remember seeing living chimpanzees before nine years ago.

The Pittsburgh Zoo. Over 40 years ago.

 

[LTC8K6]

None, yet. Remember, the first chimpanzee fossils were only discovered 9 years ago, and the anthropologist that found them was at the site for ten years before she discovered them so to declare no bigfoot fossils equals no bigfoot is actually the better example of an argument from ignorance.

Well, we had live chimps, so we didn't need fossils.

I got a sweet idea.

Bring me a live bigfoot, and I'll forget about the missing fossil record.

 

[smartcooky]

None, yet. Remember, the first chimpanzee fossils were only discovered 9 years ago, and the anthropologist that found them was at the site for ten years before she discovered them so to declare no bigfoot fossils equals no bigfoot is actually the better example of an argument from ignorance.

Ha ha, ha ha ha!! I guess that's one way to try shifting the burden of proof!

Who needs chimp fossils anyway when man has known about and had regular contact with live ones for many thousands of years.

On the other hand, Amerindians have been living in North America for between 13,000 and 40,000 years. They killed bears and bison and numerous other wildlife, none of which includes Figboot!

IMO, Figboot sightings are more likely to be just misidentified North American Black bears.

1. They range over the same territories that Figboot sightings are reported in,

2. Despite the name "Black Bear", they actually come in a similar range of colours to those reported in Figboot sightings.

3. It is quite common for bears to stand up, giving them the appearance of great height, and making them look bipedal.



P.S. Whatever happened to "The Great Reveal" and the Figboot DNA fiasco. A fizzer I'll bet.

 

[William Parcher]

technically nothing is ever 100%.

That is 100% wrong.

 

[Tolls]

None, yet. Remember, the first chimpanzee fossils were only discovered 9 years ago, and the anthropologist that found them was at the site for ten years before she discovered them so to declare no bigfoot fossils equals no bigfoot is actually the better example of an argument from ignorance.

As EHocking says, there are no primates in the NA fossil record for some 40 million years. A Bigfoot would not appear out of nowhere, there would be precursors. And yet there are none.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This whole idea that if one side of a discussion is unable to present even the slightest bit of evidence that the other side is "appealing to ignorance" because they cant prove a negative is just absurd.

I'm seriously ready to start considering Figbootism a cult at this point. We're pretty much invoking a Bigfoot of the Gaps. What's next "Bigfoot moves in mysterious ways?"

It takes a lot of gall to present no evidence and then try to call the other side out because their counter evidence doesn't meet your standards.

"You're being unreasonable because you haven't proved me wrong enough" is both special pleading and just kinda jerky.

 

[tsig]

Well, we had live chimps, so we didn't need fossils.

I got a sweet idea.

Bring me a live bigfoot, and I'll forget about the missing fossil record.

If you haven't got the fossils, bang on a live bigfoot,

if you haven't got a live bigfoot, bang on the fossils

if you haven't got a live bigfoot or fossils bang on the skeptics.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Seriously does special pleading just feel that good to do for some people?

 

[eerok]

In the common, practical case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. When you check your pocket for car keys, and you don't find them, does this throw you into an endless loop? How many thousands of times must you pat yourself down before you decide that it's pointless? When your kid makes you check the closet for a monster, are you forced to admit, even after you've looked, that you really can't say that there's not one there?

There's such a thing as conspicuous absence, and bigfoot is a good example. We'd know if bigfoot existed or not, and actually we do know: bigfoot was never real.

 

[Tolls]

When your kid makes you check the closet for a monster, are you forced to admit, even after you've looked, that you really can't say that there's not one there?.

I should try that one, though I doubt my wife or the kids would appreciate it...

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Just because you can't see the monster in the closet, it doesn't mean that it's not there. Clearly, the monster has adapted to life in the closet, it has blended in. Have you tried leaving a gift basket in there? I hear Good 'n Plenty's work well...

 

[JoeMorgue]

That and frankly I doubt anyone here is so intellectually hollow they are actually able to form an stance based on lack of counter evidence. That's not how the human brain works. It's why special pleading is special pleading.

So focusing on the lack of counter evidence is obviously just a distraction.

 

[Correa Neto]

The lack of bigfoot fossils has been discussed here ad nauseam. Has NL ever bothered to check the posts on this issue? Is he ignoring it all on purpose?

How can anyone with a rational take on the issue ignore the following facts:

-Its not just about the absence of fossils of large non-human primates in North America; its actually about their absence at the fossil register across an enormous swath of land which starts at Southeastern Asia (closest site to North America with fossils of large primates). Note that the closest primate populations to bigfoots' alleged habitats are in Mexico and they are New World Monkeys, not apes. Note also they have fossil register at the Caribbean islands. Even remains of these relatively small tree-dwelling animals can be found. But not bigfoots'.

-Is utter ignorance, self-delusion or lack of honesty to say the small fossil register of chimps in Africa somehow excuses the absence of bigfoot fossils. Why? Simple. Because it ignores all the other fossils of great apes ever found in Africa (including our ancestors') and also because it ignores the fact that we know much more about North America's fossil register than Africa's.

So, even if someone sticks to the "but I've seen one of them" fallback position, the believer's last stand, its actually impossible to ignore the fact that the absence of remains -recent and fossils- is something unexcusable. If they were real, there would be remains: recent and/or ancient. The honest position would be something like "I acknowledge its the key flaw in my position, I acknowledge I have no reasonable explanations to offer".

So, what's your game here NL?
Evangelize skeptics?
Test your belief in bigfoot?
Grinding for points to climb within the hierarchy of the bigfoot community?
Propaganda for BFRO -or your own's- paid bigfoot expeditions?
LOLs for trolling?

Is that all footers can do? Regurgitate countless time the same lame stuff?
NL, do you really belive in bigfoot?
How long untill we hear about your amazing close encounter, multiple encounters or habituation tale at Area Y?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

"But what about Giganto, doe? He real."

 

[Resume]

Hey NL . . . in a few short months you'll have the opportunity of a lifetime. The two-track wilderness you guys camp on will be covered with a sure fire tracking device called snow. After a significant fall you should be able to traverse the length of the two-track wilderness on a snowmobile or four-wheeler and locate an unmistakable trackway. If footie is there as you claim, it will necessarily leave behind some big ole size 28s. Follow these to your destiny.

 

[Correa Neto]

"But what about Giganto, doe? He real."

Sure, of course they are real. That's exactly why there are fossils of them.
Bigfoot, on the other hand...

By the way, gigantopithecus are the reasons why the enormous swath of land starting at Southeastern Asia and ending at Texas is the area where bigfoots' fossils could be be found. If bigfoots were not tall tales, of course.

But...
But...
But...
I've seen one!
You can't take that from me!

 

[EHocking]

In the common, practical case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Except that my argument is there is evidence of absence.

"Science" has established conclusive evidence that T.Rex went extinct 65m years ago. No one seems to be disputing this.

"Science" has established conclusive evidence that primates went extinct 40m years ago on the N.Am continent. Some people seem to want to ignore this to enable BF to exist.

When you check your pocket for car keys, and you don't find them, does this throw you into an endless loop? How many thousands of times must you pat yourself down before you decide that it's pointless? When your kid makes you check the closet for a monster, are you forced to admit, even after you've looked, that you really can't say that there's not one there?

There's such a thing as conspicuous absence, and bigfoot is a good example. We'd know if bigfoot existed or not, and actually we do know: bigfoot was never real.

I am not arguing lack of evidence for bigfoot.

I am arguing evidence that there are no primates in N.Am that bigfoot could have from the first place.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hey NL . . . in a few short months you'll have the opportunity of a lifetime. The two-track wilderness you guys camp on will be covered with a sure fire tracking device called snow. After a significant fall you should be able to traverse the length of the two-track wilderness on a snowmobile or four-wheeler and locate an unmistakable trackway. If footie is there as you claim, it will necessarily leave behind some big ole size 28s. Follow these to your destiny.

I don't remember what the rebuttal to "no Bigfoot tracks in the snow" was, but it's out there..

It seems that hibernation may have entered the argument at one time....