...I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot but since I didn't actually see the creature leave the sample, it is still an unknown and therefore unworthy of testing at this time...
You could have
Bigfoot DNA,
but it's unworthy of testing? I could have argued you jumped the shark a long time ago, but now it's official, you've jumped the shark.
You don't have Bigfoot DNA, you're BLAARGing. And poorly.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The Shrike said:
3)Bigfoots should have been known to ancient peoples on multiple continents and their parts should have played important roles in religion and mysticism, as other animals did/do.
Not only is there not a single piece of a bigfoot among cultural items of native North Americans, there are no such artifacts among ancient Asians, Europeans, or Australians. The simple fact that Tibetans saw fit to make a shrine to their "yeti" but forge an artifact of it from a takin skin illustrates two important things from the land where bigfoot mythology really got going in the 1950s: a) the ancient cultures would have worshiped such creatures and collected their body parts, and b) there were no such body parts for them to collect. We're now 3 for 3 on bigfoot fails.
Whoa Nellie. #3 actually argues FOR the presence of Bigfoot in North America. As
there are literally bookoo references about creatures fitting the
descriptions of Bigfoot in many Native American cultures. Certainly not all match the
description of Bigfoot and some of those
legends have been
stretched to include Bigfoot even when the
description is off by leaps and bounds, but there are some that match exactly without doubt.
I think you're taking a view of their beliefs a little far though to include collecting body parts for the sake of worship. I don't think hacking up the hairy man of the forest would have been considered "respectful". And with most of the American Indian legends of similar described creatures the "respect" for them part is usually outlined pretty well.
It's not about "hacking up" anything. Straw. The fact is not a single physical piece of anything Bigfooty has shown up in all this "respect" for same. The natives "respected"
all of nature, bear, buffalo, deer, wolf, rabbit, but they still ate them and used them as a resource for most everything else. Forget a body, not a single dead Bigfoot body part, finger, arm, leg, foot, flap, scalp, bunion, bear kill, nothing, yet Bigfoot was "ubiquitous" amongst the native peoples, "well known" and so "respected" by them all.
But not a single piece. It's beyond absurd.
Actually though, I'm just using this as an example to show Chris's
insincerity in this discussion. See below.
...2. That's true, we have alot of caves here. Most of them contain Native American artifacts as well. That's a particular problem with doing a legal dig. Once you find Native American artifacts, everything grinds to a halt and now you'll find a new set of rules to go by. Illegal digs are another issue. I have no desire to spend jail time or absorb fines from an illegal dig. Some good well organized legal permitted digs would be the way to go.
Chris B.
You don't get embarrassed do you?! In the quotes I exampled above,
The Shrike points out the reasoning for the expectation of "
artifacts" in regards to physical matter
related to Bigfoot (it's not just bones), and you answered him with some "legends and descriptions" tangent unrelated to the physical "artifacts" aspect he was addressing, which can only be because you were
pretending to answer him. That's because in the quote directly above, you not only acknowledge that
you know what "artifacts" means, you've apparently had some experience with them in the past in knowing how much pain such findings can potentially inflict on the progress of anything where digging occurs.
It's pretty simple,
ChrisBFRPKY can't have an
honest discussion here whenever it would make his case
even more absurd. BLAARGing.
Hold your horses and your out of context attempt to swing this conversation elsewhere.
We were discussing the difference between Chinese "farmers" and North American "farmers" as related to motivation for finding "Dragon Bones"
The Chinese guys had motive as they were making money from the sale of these fossils to medicine shops. Our guys didn't have the same motivation.
Chris B.
Yes by all means, let's live in a vacuum. Chinese farmers really are the only ones with a need to excavate "fossils". Of course Chinese farmers don't know what a "fossil" is, but that's beside the point. And anyone else who looks for "fossils" is just screwing it up for Chinese farmers. They've got porcupines as pets when they live in caves(?) and have "apothecaries" to supply to "reap the rewards". Apparently
Giganto Bigfoot is so clever, he's still got Chinese farmers from the 30's all confused, and they're all dead.
See if you get it this time:
PALEONTOLOGY. Still no?
Sure you did. Also, my dad can totally beat up your dad. You're not even trying at this point, are you?
He's not.
Right because if farmers don't dig up bones to make folk remedies out of them, there is no science of paleontology and finding the fossil of a 10 foot tall monkey is just sooooo unreasonable.
Your BLAARGing needs an expansion pack.
So funny.
