ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think you think I'm here to prove Bigfoot exists for you, I'm not.
Oh, I know you can't prove bigfoot exists. What you fail to understand is that I'm telling you what your side needs to do in order to convince us. I'm handing you the playbook to win the game.
I don't have any viable evidence.
Than you have no basis for any rational belief.
To make a long story short, your opinion has been noted...
I have provided no opinions. I have stated what is necessary to establish what bigfoot believers wish to establish, along with several criticisms of your logic, evidence, and refutations, and one conclusion (along with a brief discussion of some of the evidence supporting it). To call that an "opinion" is a misnomer; it is at worst a professional opinion. Meaning that unlike you, I DO have the knowledge, background, and field experience to draw rigorous conclusions on this topic.
pics are not viable evidence of an undiscovered species, we'd need a body or part on file for that as you well know,
Nonsense, and this proves you haven't read what I wrote. A picture could prove the existence of a new species. Pictures ARE scientific evidence. We don't put type specimens in journals, we put pictures of them in journals. But you have failed to rise to the level of providing photographic evidence.
I'm not one for name calling or mud tossing,
If you think that was name calling or mud tossing, never even walk into a serious academic conference. What I did was actually very polite, all things considered (including the fact that your argument necessarily declares every biologist in North American for 200+ years to be grossly and negligently incompentent if not frauds, among other things). Again, I'm merely providing you with what it would take to convince me you're right. There are standards in science. You do not meet them.
d finally since you base your opinion that Giganto could not have migrated to North America as the other mammals and hominids did based on the lack of fossil evidence, I would say that is an opinion based on current available evidence and to be continued.
See, unlike you, I actually have examined the fossil evidence. There are four different places we would necessarily have to find Giganto specimens if they existed in North America, given how organisms invade NA from Asia. We find them in none. Plus, I'm actively engaged in looking for fossils from that time period--I just got off a job where I was digging up ~5 ma fossils, for example. I know what the fossil record looks like for this time period, in part because I'm helping discover it, and therefore can assure you that "We haven't found it...YET!!" is nothing more htan a transparently manipulative attempt to misrepresent the fossil record.
I've never seen a dragon or dragon tracks, except the kind in Komodo, I've never seen a unicorn or tracks made by one.
If you knew the etimology of those two words, you'd know that's actually not true.
But, I have seen a large hairy primate, its tracks etc and taken plenty of eye witness reports of them.
What allowed you to identify it as a primate? Why do you consider the eye witness reports reliable? How do you rule out being mistaken? This is no personal attack. I once saw a 30 foot tall glass spider walk over a car in Texas, and I know a guy who saw a gopher in a WWII style military helmet and rocket launcher. Neither of us believes these things to have existed, however.
I'm content knowing they exist, your opinion of that matters very little to me.
Personally, I'd love for them to exist. They would be a facinating thing to study, and the migration of Giganto across NA would yeild vast amounts of information about other invasions. That's why I bothered giving you the data I did--so you can prove me wrong (well, that and to show exactly how you fail, debunking the falsehoods you present about how this process works). I WANT you to be right. It's just that the evidence is so crapy that I cannot believe you are and maintain my intellectual honesty.
