Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Juat as you are open to the fact idea Bigfoot exists.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

That's been the skeptical position the entire time, Chris.

Show us that they do, in fact, exist and we have no choice but to spin on a dime and admit we were wrong.

I think it won't happen, primarily because they don't exist.

If they did exist, someone would have bagged one by now. If you think not, I have to remind you that before the colonization of the Americas the Indians Native Americans First Nation Tribes what-the-hell-ever they call em now were here for thousands of years. And they almost certainly would have slain a few, and we'd have evidence of it.

And much of the early settlers were, sadly, exploitive as all hell. Hunters, farmers, pilgrims, loggers, prospectors... Thousands, maybe even millions, of people looking to strike it rich and/or make a name for themselves. Are you really telling me none would bag a Bigfoot should the opportunity had arisen?

I'd go on, but this is well worn territory by now.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Mae Charim is about the only place in Thailand I'd like to look, there and on into Laos through the mountains.
Click to expand...

I lived in a tiny Ah Kha village just west of there in 1999. There is no history of bigfoot in Thailand - it is an emerging phenomenon right now because there is money in feeding tourists their own garbage. The hill tribes are not Buddhist, and they have their own languages. They have used slash and burn agriculture for millennia - all these preserves are recent, and it has the same parallel with logging in the USA: the pretense that the recent preserves are ancient wilderness with no previous human occupation or impact. What it has done is destroy the hill tribe migratory cultures.

Men risked their lives and indeed died climbing over a hundred feet into trees for a quart of honey. No branches up until the canopy - they were scaling the trunks of these massive trees with bare hands and feet. They would have died trying to kill bigfoot too, and are quite happy to push the tourists' own myth for easy cash.

It is interesting to see the history of Yeti begin in the Himalayas as a small hoaxing adjunct to the mountaineering industry, then explode into the North American scene, drawing the Yeti hunters like Peter Byrne to North America, and almost half a century later boomerang back all over Asia as an adjunct to the tourist trekking industry.

It began, and still is an industry serving western fantasies. The myth was nonexistent in Thailand when Roger Patterson went over there for the bar girls of Bangkok, so he could not even name the place he was supposedly looking.

Patterson himself said the story was a hoax, and it was a doozie - a live bigfoot being held captive in a Buddhist monestary. He did not name the person who supposedly sent him the letter and he did not name the monastery nor even the region. With a story that sensational, it would have been easy to fact-check had he named the alleged story-teller or the monastery.

All over the world we see the same thing emerging: bigfoot is being injected into regions with bona-fide wildlife preservation programs for real animals but the wildlife managers themselves do not recognize its existence. Native cultures which are no longer viable because they are placed on reservations without the ability to pursue their previous livelihoods service tourists with whatever sells.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
So the answer is to stop looking? Well, that would kinda rule out finding any new stuff in general.
Click to expand...
So wait, does that mean if we're looking for one thing, we can still find a different thing? Say if we're looking for pygmy rattlers and instead, what ho, walk up upon a 9-ft, 600-lb bipedal ape? Are you saying that's possible?

If we think we have all the answers and know everything there is to know about our planet, then sure we could stop looking for anything unknown. But we don't have all the answers and we don't know everything there is to know about the life on our planet. So, let's keep looking until we get to that point shall we? Chris B.
Click to expand...
The people who are actually looking for answers say this:
According to Prof. Darren Curnoe of the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales in Australia, the chances of finding a completely new species of hominid are remote. He is also critical of the project efforts, especially linking it to the possibility of finding a Yeti.

“There are far better ways to spend scarce funding for science than chasing mythological creatures and more than enough real and mind-boggling mysteries in nature to keep many generations of scientists busy,” he says.
Click to expand...
What Prof. Curnoe is saying, I think, is enough with the pretend stuff already. Quit wasting our time.


NSFW!
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Avoiding addressing my point? What forum are you reading? The lack of biological evidence equals the lack of scientific proof of Bigfoot. That's exactly where we are today. I cannot be any clearer. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Chris, what you said was:

"...without biological evidence to back up the claim you have nothing."

Now you are moving goalposts and saying the obvious as if you are making a point we're all missing. Everyone here already knows that there is no biological proof of bigfoot. We know that. You know that. But what you said was without biological evidence a claim is nothing. That means all bigfoot evidence to date amounts to nothing in your estimation.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Why? I saw only pics of known species. Is there a cryptid whale represented at any of the links you provided? Chris B.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the point! For real animals we have clear, distinct photos- and conversely these photos help significantly to prove the existence of these real animals. Even (and especially) rare animals.

Bigfoot- nothing equivalent. Why do you imagine that might be true?
 
Last edited:
Heck, you can find photos of the coelacanth. Only about a thousand of those in the world, and they live at depths of up to 2300 feet.

Not many places in Kentucky where you can be that far from a road, even ignoring the fact of crushing pressure and reduced light.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzrZNmdCjuU

The mysterious whale stealing fish off of fishing lines, ID'd even though it only shows it's lower jaw.
Click to expand...
How interesting that you mention whales. There are far more interesting real mysteries in that realm.

Take the Blue Whale. We have no idea what it's migration routes might be, nor where it mates, nor why it is that their whales songs stop sometimes and simultaneously resume with a new song months later which it seems impossible that all Blue whales learned simultaneously at the latest meeting of the "Itty Bitty Whale Song Committee" or something. Nobody knows for sure.

Now, despite all of these genuine mysteries about the largest creature which has ever been actually found on this planet, which can trivially been shown to exist for centuries (whalers caught them), Footers spend time looking for a delusional phantom which cannot be shown to exist, leaves no traces, leaves no evidence, leaves no photos, leaves no trace at all, no more than unicorns, or pixies, or ghosts.

Take the giant squid. It is known to exist because corpses wash up from time particularly in New Zealand. Nobody knows why new Zealand. Until a couple of years ago, there was not any record of a live giant squid. Nevertheless, they were demonstrably real due to corpses, the fact that they are they prime component of sperm whale diets (which we also know are real), ambergris, and sperm whale scarring. Speaking of sperm whales, we have no idea how they avoid the bends when they undertake their deep sea diving hunts for those giant squid.

Now it seems to me that as an actual denizen of this world, real mysteries would be far more deserving of attention rather than myths and nonsense. And the corollary is that footers must perforce have a different interest than research into a real mystery, preferring as they do, no research into a fake mystery. What might that interest be?

Given that it demonstrably is not to find an actual animal, to provide hoaxes and to actively avoid providing any evidence, there are few remaining options.

Personally, I mostly lurk BF threads and post little, but I find the entire thing risible. Chris, for example, claims for years that he has hard evidence which he cannot show for reasons he cannot bring himself to rationally explain. Why is that? It's **** all use if you never show it to anyone. Bigfoot family group from 15 feet? Well that has got to be high resolution, right? Wrong. Nobody has ever seen it. And so forth.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
So the answer is to stop looking? Well, that would kinda rule out finding any new stuff in general. If we think we have all the answers and know everything there is to know about our planet, then sure we could stop looking for anything unknown. But we don't have all the answers and we don't know everything there is to know about the life on our planet. So, let's keep looking until we get to that point shall we? Chris B.
Click to expand...

A more relevant question is when to stop looking for a particular entity when there is no convincing evidence for it, and when in fact there should be such evidence? The second part is very relevant: if you told me simply that we should stop looking for a novel form of life on Jupiter because there is no evidence of such a thing, I would say, "True there is no evidence for it, but Jupiter is so distant there is very little reason to expect that we would have run across any evidence of such a thing even if it did exist. So the absence of evidence doesn't mean much in this case. We should look at a level where, if there is evidence, we would find it. Then if we don't find any evidence when we should have, life on Jupiter probably doesn't exist."

This is very different from Bigfoot. After all these years one would expect clear photos, scat, hair samples, dead Bigfeet, etc. We are talking about fairly populated areas, you know, not the surface of Jupiter. Given such convincing evidence has yet to turn up, then the most reasonable conclusion is that Bigfoot doesn't exist, because if he did we would have found these things. And we have not.

As to when to stop looking- it is a free country. You can look for unicorns if you wish (given the multiplicity of paintings and stories of such creatures, why is this less reasonable than looking for Bigfoot?). I would not try to stop you. But don't expect an credulous reception when you come to this forum and state that certain blurs are really Bigfoot, that you have a DNA sample but you just don't want to test it (for free) until you know it is Bigfoot, and that convincing evidence will appear any day now. If you can't "show us the monkey" alive" at least show us some hair, or scat, or a clear photograph, or a body part. These should be there, even if only a few Bigfeet exist.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Just for fun:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...angered-species-animals-joel-sartore-science/

Pictures of the rarest animals on Earth (the Amur leopard on the link only has 14 to 20 members surviving, as of 2007).
Click to expand...

How do I know that these photos weren't faked?

More seriously, it is amazing to me how the photos of other rare animals can be so very clear, and many of them have even been captured alive, whereas Bigfoot remains a distant, grainy blur with no convincing physical evidence left behind. I find myself agreeing with the Bigfoot fans who believe that if Bigfoot exists, he is a dimension-shifting super-intelligent extra-terrestrial rather than simply an undiscovered terrestrial animal. It is the only "logical" explanation that fits the facts.
 
Giordano said:
How do I know that these photos weren't faked?

More seriously, it is amazing to me how the photos of other rare animals can be so very clear, and many of them have even been captured alive, whereas Bigfoot remains a distant, grainy blur with no convincing physical evidence left behind. I find myself agreeing with the Bigfoot fans who believe that if Bigfoot exists, he is a dimension-shifting super-intelligent extra-terrestrial rather than simply an undiscovered terrestrial animal. It is the only "logical" explanation that fits the facts.
Click to expand...

Yep.

For Pete's sake, we've identified microbes in sealed subterranean lakes, found rare species in the most inhospitable and hard-to-reach areas on the Earth (deserts, jungles, artic and anarctic, deep deep ocean trenches), but somehow a breeding population of giant hominids has been sitting in our backyard through thousands of years of humanity exploiting the resources of the area, and no one noticed.
 
Hellbound said:
Yep.

For Pete's sake, we've identified microbes in sealed subterranean lakes, found rare species in the most inhospitable and hard-to-reach areas on the Earth (deserts, jungles, artic and anarctic, deep deep ocean trenches), but somehow a breeding population of giant hominids has been sitting in our backyard through thousands of years of humanity exploiting the resources of the area, and no one noticed.
Click to expand...

I don't always notice when my wife changes her hair style. This really annoys her. Perhaps she is a Bigfoot too, and I just haven't noticed? What size shoes should I look for?
 
Giordano said:
I don't always notice when my wife changes her hair style. This really annoys her. Perhaps she is a Bigfoot too, and I just haven't noticed? What size shoes should I look for?
Click to expand...

Try and Kodak her when she's not looking, the photo should come out as an unrecognisable mess, if your wife's photo's are blurry: she's a 'Squatch alright. Is she partial to a Zagnut or two?
 
Last edited:
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Bob the "Indian Tracker" Gimlin? The same Bob Gimlin who couldn't recall whether Roger fell off his horse or merely jumped off? The same Gimlin who wasn't sure if the horses were spooked or calm? The same Bob who said he never operated a camera at all during their trip but clearly must've done if they were the only two people there? That Bob Gimlin?
Click to expand...


Yes, when Honest Bob donned a wig and pretended to be an Indian, that was just for snits and giggles. :D

RayG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom