Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

No.

Oh. Well, I missed you. That's a no sarcasm smiley, BTW. I was really hoping you might answer this question:

...and why aren't you into yowies?

I'm not implying you were avoiding it.

I have no idea. It works for me. I just read your post a little while ago and I certainly didn't "report" it. Of course an SFB administrator might be reading the board.

Well, I hope General Discussion will be available to the public again soon. Not even Loose Change prevents the public from having access to it's members ideas.

That reminds me, I read almost the entire classic Mary Green's Bark Ball BFF thread today. Now that was a brawl. I think were doing quite fine here. Personally, I can't wait for mangler's next post.

 

[mangler]

Lal,

Nothing personal, but are you qualified to speak with authority when it comes to spoor of any kind? Even an amature tracker should be able see bear/deer sign, not just recent but years worth when they are breaking trail.

This statement you made is absolutely laughable were I come from;

"I don't have to imagine the bear; I lived in bear country. I saw a black bear eating blackberries once, but there was no sign it had been there next time I went by."

When did you go back, how often did you go back? Animals are frickin habitual, that's the difference between us and them. I can assure you that some bear returned to those same blackberries and if you new anything about animal sign you could have anticipate when. Blackberries in a patch do not ripen at the same time, and there is'ent much out in the wild that a bear craves more than sweet berries. Actually, generally speaking berries are tied 2nd with different grasses as total food intake, forbs lead with probably 35-40% of yearly food intake. The only possibility that the same bear did not come back would be if said bear was a yearling that was just booted out, and in that case the sow or local boar would claim rights to those berries (of course if all the berries were gone there would not be much motivation for the animal to return). Regardless which scenario one looks at the animal will work the area until all food sources are depleted, generally speaking only then will it move to another area. Of course there are exceptions to this rule but without knowing the local geography/ecosystem I would just be guessing about those exceptions.

It's not like your dealing with tracking a special forces team here, odds are there's no need for flank tracking and/or making circular casts, there is no need for any of the skills it takes to track a human. An animal is not trained to avoid the obvious they do not walk on the sides of their feet or wear their shoes backwards, they don't even change the direction of grass, branches ... as they travel, go figure.

As long as I'm talkin tracking, here is a quote from a guy I took a few classes from years ago. He may not be the best tracker in the world but in my opinion he's right up there, and he does pack a bit of authority when he speaks (to say the least).

"Several times people have shown me what they thought were the tracks of Bigfoot, the legendary Sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest. It took very little study to discover that they were fakes. Why? There was no life in them. There was no variation in the pressure releases. I'm not saying Bigfoot doesn't exist - I hope he does - but so far all the "Bigfoot" tracks I've seen were made by pranksters (usually large men) striding through the woods with stamps strapped to their feet."

Tom Brown


BTW kitakaze, I'll try to reply to popcorn guy, I'm trying figure how to word it so as not piss off some LURKERS.


m

 

[Belz...]

Orangutans split off from the line 12mya, but they make and use tools as chimps do. The skill must be very old in the Great Ape line, possibly present in a common ancestor.

I'm not sure that follows, necessarily. The trait could have evolved independently, or it might not be genetic at all.

I mean, birds use tools, too.

To get to a human population that didn't make tools you'd have to go back so far they'd no longer be human.

I'm not sure about australopithecus. Depends what you consider "human", I guess.

But then, how does this relate to bigfoot ?

 

[kitakaze]

...BTW kitakaze, I'll try to reply to popcorn guy, I'm trying figure how to word it so as not piss off some LURKERS.


m

Jalapenos and cheese! IMO, you are by far one of the most interesting and welcome BF pursuit participants I've seen in a very long time. Please, take all the time you need detailing your hoaxer bust anecdote and don't have a care for pissing off lurkers or anyone else. This isn't the BFF and you're in a very different environment now where assumption of existence is a joke.

Ack! Huntster, you fool! What a shame he's not here for this. Well, a shame for him at least. I don't care what anyone else thinks, having someone to share their thoughts who's spent so long searching for BF with skill and is upfront about their plain results is fascinating.

Three of them bad boys, right there.

ETA: mangler, that's a really cool coincidence, your quoting your former teacher Tom Brown as earlier today a regular high profile member quoted the same passage in a PM.

 

[LAL]

Oh. Well, I missed you. That's a no sarcasm smiley, BTW.

Thanks. I guess I missed you too or I wouldn't be answering your posts.

I was really hoping you might answer this question:I'm not implying you were avoiding it.

I'm just not into Yowies. If I lived in Australia, I might be. As it is I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Well, I hope General Discussion will be available to the public again soon. Not even Loose Change prevents the public from having access to it's members ideas.

I'll see if I can find anything out, but if they don't want the public reading the board and have a way to block that, that's their right.

That reminds me, I read almost the entire classic Mary Green's Bark Ball BFF thread today. Now that was a brawl. I think were doing quite fine here. Personally, I can't wait for mangler's next post.

I don't have time nor inclination for BFF either, right now. Come August, I'll have about 20 minutes off a week.

 

[LAL]

Lal,

Nothing personal, but are you qualified to speak with authority when it comes to spoor of any kind? Even an amature tracker should be able see bear/deer sign, not just recent but years worth when they are breaking trail.

Did I make any claims to being a tracker? I just lived in forest 3 1/2 miles from the nearest town. There were many animals (and birds) around but they were seldom seen.

I never found a Golden Eagle footprint.

A small herd of deer was in the area and I saw them down on the road sometimes, but I found tracks and scat on my place about once. They didn't strip the vegetation (although a doe and her fawn apparently nibbled a few buds of my husband's favorite hybrid tea rose every year).

The area probably had the most sasquatch sightings in the country.

This statement you made is absolutely laughable were I come from;

"I don't have to imagine the bear; I lived in bear country. I saw a black bear eating blackberries once, but there was no sign it had been there next time I went by."

Where's that? Have you been to the western part of the Columbia Gorge?

When did you go back, how often did you go back? Animals are frickin habitual, that's the difference between us and them. I can assure you that some bear returned to those same blackberries and if you new anything about animal sign you could have anticipate when.

I went by that area every time I went to town. I saw a bear (not sure if it was the same one) hightailing it off the other side of the road once. I heard later it was shot because it got into somebody's garden. It probably was a yearling. The older bears stayed higher up.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks. I guess I missed you too or I wouldn't be answering your posts.

Nice. There's no reason why your being quite sure BF exists and my opposite stance should neccesitate ill feelings. I've come to know your personality through your posts as well as one can and I'm sure same is true for me. I often feel it's your way to employ more social aspects when participating in a debate on the subject. Yet, I can appreciate your frustration with skepticism even if I disagree with its foundation. I'm no less human and my endless back and forth with such as SY shows that. As you've known from the beginning of your interactions with me, I'd love for BF to be there but there's simply no reliable evidence to indicate that. Sometimes when I look at your sig I really wonder if you come back to that level of thinking where BF seems ridiculous. Nevertheless, I'd welcome your input anyday.

I'm just not into Yowies. If I lived in Australia, I might be. As it is I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Don't forget, though, it wasn't 'I', it was 'us'. Regardless, I can't fathom locality as a reason not to be into yowies for one so ensconced in the belief of bigfoot. When you sideline it you undermine a great many of your arguments. BF has to come from somewhere and when people consistently report it in areas outside of NA, including places where gigantos could not have gotten to, to not address that with the same type of effort as you do for Iowa and left and right, it puts the fizzle on the plot. If you take my meaning.

I'll see if I can find anything out, but if they don't want the public reading the board and have a way to block that, that's their right.

Absolutely, it's Melissa's or Kathy's or whoever elses right to make that call. But if beyond 9/11 truthers you opt against public scrutiny of the ideas presented on your board, well then, I think that's an ackowledgement of the fractural weakness of the whole concept. If you want to have conversations on topics that clearly illustrate the fallacies of the beliefs of those involved and for it not to be commented on elsewhere by those with an interest in the subject then clearly that is the right of those who do so. Certainly, however, it does much to discount an ability to take the views of those people at face value. JMHO.

I don't have time nor inclination for BFF either, right now.

I hear that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
So...is there a difference in the meanings of these two statements...which use those 2 phrases...

Quote:
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

and your translation of it.....

Quote:
he said "no evidence has ever convinced me, so far."

I can't help but notice that the word "worthless" isn't in any of those sentences... so I'm wondering what your point is.

Do you really have NO idea what my point has been all along, belz?
I'd be happy to go over it again for you.

It looks as though you may be playing a word game, now....picking on a technicality.

Is there a real difference in the meaning of these two statements....

A) The evidence for Bigfoot is "worthless"

and....

B) The evidence for Bigfoot does not have "ANY degree of likeliness, however small..."

If there is a difference...concerning the WEIGHT being given to the evidence, could you explain what it is?

 

[Melissa]

Poor Kitakazee

First of all, the owner of the Search for Bigfoot website - is me. Secondly, if you are a member, you can access all parts of that board that are open to the public membership. You clearly are not a member.

But if beyond 9/11 truthers you opt against public scrutiny of the ideas presented on your board, well then, I think that's an ackowledgement of the fractural weakness of the whole concept. If you want to have conversations on topics that clearly illustrate the fallacies of the beliefs of those involved and for it not to be commented on elsewhere by those with an interest in the subject then clearly that is the right of those who do so. Certainly, however, it does much to discount an ability to take the views of those people at face value. JMHO.

Geesh - paranoid much?? Afraid were keeping the secret hiding spot to a bigfoot from you? LMAO. You really are a piece of work. Maybe its not as sinister as you might like people to think. Maybe the board is set up that way - for the same reason other websites do that very thing. I wonder why I had to sign up here in order to post?? Cause those are the rules.

No one owes you anything Kitakazee - if you want to post on the Search for Bigfoot - sign up like everyone else. Otherwise, you can read what your allowed to read. Dont be such a crybaby.

 

[LAL]

MELLLLLLLLLL! Tell him I was in Asheville this evening and didn't ask nobody nothing. I didn't know you've been reading the board. Heck, I haven't been reading the board.

I think Kitakaze would make a good token sceptic, actually. He brings up some good points when he's not trying to pound anyone's head into the floor.

 

[LAL]

Nice. There's no reason why your being quite sure BF exists and my opposite stance should neccesitate ill feelings. I've come to know your personality through your posts as well as one can and I'm sure same is true for me. I often feel it's your way to employ more social aspects when participating in a debate on the subject. Yet, I can appreciate your frustration with skepticism even if I disagree with its foundation.

As a sceptic myself I'm not opposed to scepticism. I check out everything I can. Tonight the real-life discussion covered everything from "sleep driving" under Ambien to the molecular clock.

I do obect to name-calling and rudeness. When that started tonight, I got up from the table and left.

I don't think scepticism is well represented by some of the posters on JREF (or on other boards, for that matter).

I'm no less human and my endless back and forth with such as SY shows that. As you've known from the beginning of your interactions with me, I'd love for BF to be there but there's simply no reliable evidence to indicate that.

In your opinion there's no reliable evidence. In my opinion there is.

Sometimes when I look at your sig I really wonder if you come back to that level of thinking where BF seems ridiculous.

Not really. I just like Richard Greenwell's sense of humor.

I can understand how a city dweller with no knowlege of the phenomenon but what he's seen on TV would think the very idea preposterous. I can see how it might challenge the beliefs of creationists and scientists alike, but having lived in sasquatch country and known law enforcement officials who were in on investigations, I find the whole thing quite normal. I don't remember ever being particulary surprised by it all.

What's ridiculous to me is that it's not taken more seriously and the willingness of some to jump on Long's book or Crowley's plaster pouring as some kind of proof the whole thing's a hoax and proponents are out of their trees.

Someone asked about scientific confirmation coming in my lifetime. I think it already has.

Nevertheless, I'd welcome your input anyday.Don't forget, though, it wasn't 'I', it was 'us'. Regardless, I can't fathom locality as a reason not to be into yowies for one so ensconced in the belief of bigfoot.

I'll look into it further, but I really know more about the Orang Pendek.

When you sideline it you undermine a great many of your arguments.

Why? I think that areas of the world that have many reports of bipedal primates , or "wildmen" very likely have bipedal primates, or "wildmen". We know they existed in the past. I see no reason why they can't exist in the present. Is there some reason all bipedal primates had to become extinct so glorious man could stand alone (on two feet)?

BF has to come from somewhere and when people consistently report it in areas outside of NA, including places where gigantos could not have gotten to, to not address that with the same type of effort as you do for Iowa and left and right, it puts the fizzle on the plot. If you take my meaning.

For starters, I don't think it's all the same species. If Australian Yowies match the description or Giganto-type creatures (and I don't know that they do), I don't see an insurmountable problem in Giganto getting from Vietnam to Australia.

Ocean levels dropped with water tied up in ice and Australia lost its isolation in the late Pleistocene, which is when the Giganto camp thinks the migration over the Bering land bridge occured.

How impossible does this look?

"The Australis, i.e. Australia and its surroundings, during the last glacial maximum about 18000 years ago (approximation). At that time, the sea level was probably about 150m or more lower than today, and most of the Sunda Shelf (Malaya/South-East Asia), the Sahul Shelf (Australia/Papua[=New Guinea]) and the Bass Strait were above it. Furthermore, parts of southern Aotearoa, the Tasmanian highlands and the Australian Alps were glaciated, and the ice of the Antarctic reached much further north than today."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

 

[Belz...]

Do you really have NO idea what my point has been all along, belz?

Well it's not my fault you can't be bothered to say what you mean.

It looks as though you may be playing a word game, now....picking on a technicality.

<sigh> And what technicality would that be ?

Is there a real difference in the meaning of these two statements....

A) The evidence for Bigfoot is "worthless"

and....

B) The evidence for Bigfoot does not have "ANY degree of likeliness, however small..."

Well, aside from the fact that the second sentence is poorly constructed, yes, there could be. I'll assume you meant "B) The evidence for bigfoot is not convincing in any way." However, it depends what you mean by "worthless". Since the word litterally means "has no value", it could mean the same thing as B), or it could simply mean that it cannot be analysed or verified, in which case it includes B), but is also broader. The difference is subtle, however.

I'd also like to point out that the second sentence is NOT the one we discussed. Its tone and content are different, entirely, although many of the words are the same. Who's playing word games, now ?

Again, I'm at a loss as to what your point is, so this:

I'd be happy to go over it again for you.

Was just a smokescreen, as you didn't explain what your point was.

 

[kitakaze]

First of all, the owner of the Search for Bigfoot website - is me. Secondly, if you are a member, you can access all parts of that board that are open to the public membership. You clearly are not a member.

Well, I apologize if I offended you, Melissa. I don't think it's necessary to get your back up so much. However, as I'm well aware that it's your board I can understand your desire to defend and respond to any scrutiny. Try not to forget that I didn't say that the reason general discussion is not available to the public has anything to do with my posts here or skeptical scrutiny in general. I did state my opinion regarding if that were to be the case, though.

Geesh - paranoid much?? Afraid were keeping the secret hiding spot to a bigfoot from you? LMAO. You really are a piece of work. Maybe its not as sinister as you might like people to think. Maybe the board is set up that way - for the same reason other websites do that very thing. I wonder why I had to sign up here in order to post?? Cause those are the rules.

Now, I think your being overly dramatic, which is rather a tendency with you as we've seen in the past. Since there's is no sound reason to consider bigfoot as it's described exists as anything other than a modern myth, I would find the idea of you or your internet forum being privy to reliable evidence to be rather charming.

Again, it's your sandbox and you get to make the rules. I think it's quite understandable to have certain sections of such a site not available for public viewing. Nearly all sections being protected on a site for people who believe in bigfoot is rather silly, though. Maybe, if it's not asking too much, you could explain why even general discussion is not viewable by the public. You are, of course, making a rather silly comparison by mentioning this board. Did you have to sign in as a member to view this or any of the other discussions? Indeed, the only section of this board not available to non-members is Flame Wars. This is the only internet forum I actively participate in at the present but I haven't heard of any where you don't need to register to post.

No one owes you anything Kitakazee - if you want to post on the Search for Bigfoot - sign up like everyone else. Otherwise, you can read what your allowed to read. Dont be such a crybaby.

You know, when you get all worked up like that you really miss the point. I have no desire to post on your board and I'm sure you'll agree that's all the better for you and the rest who just want to let their hair down and engage in wild speculation.

BTW, after reading your posting guidelines, a couple points come to mind that you might want to fix if you really want to be considered more skeptical than the average bear:

* Bigfoot are flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. We do not believe bigfoot are inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or exhibit supernatural abilities If you feel they are any of these things, you're still welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

That's hardly skeptical when you remember to add a 'we do not believe' for wormhole bigfoots but state as fact that bigfoot are flesh and blood animals.

We have those who have had encounters and those who have not.

If you can pardon the nit-pick, maybe a 'claim encounters' or 'encounters with what they believed was bigfoot' might be more appropriate or were those encounters verified?

BTW, what's with the 'kitakazee'? Is that just a typo or some silly poke? If it is I really don't get it. Why not 'Kitty' or 'kitakraze' or something like that. Anyway, don't take the scrutiny so personally. If you think it's incorrect just state your case.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

Ocean levels dropped with water tied up in ice and Australia lost its isolation in the late Pleistocene, which is when the Giganto camp thinks the migration over the Bering land bridge occured.

Yowza....so it may not have been such an "impossible" feat....for Yowies to make it across on two feet.

I don't think scepticism is well represented by some of the posters on JREF (or on other boards, for that matter).

Good observation, Lu!

Note the appearance of closed-mindedness in Diogene's statement in my signature line.

Greg also pointed out, somewhat recently....while in the midst of a skeptical WOOgasm of epic proportions... ...that there's no proof that Roger Patterson actually shot the Patterson Film. It could have been someone else, for all we know!

Skepticism in all it's BONE-headed glory!!

 

[kitakaze]

I do obect to name-calling and rudeness. When that started tonight, I got up from the table and left.

What was that, specifically? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think scepticism is well represented by some of the posters on JREF (or on other boards, for that matter).

Why's that and how would you like informed BF skepticism to be represented?

In your opinion there's no reliable evidence. In my opinion there is.

Respectfully, it's not a matter of 'I say/you say'. There is no evidence of bigfoot that has withstood rigourous scientific scrutiny. Such a notion is ridiculous for a such a creature that has been reported from Alaska to Iowa to Florida. Again, LAL, why doesn't ongoing field research of Vancouver Island Marmots encounter reliable evidence of bigfoot? If you don't have a good answer then maybe you can e-mail Bindernagel on the matter. Why hasn't heavy hunting activity in the Adironacks brought down a sasquatch?

I can understand how a city dweller with no knowlege of the phenomenon but what he's seen on TV would think the very idea preposterous.

Can you understand the incredulity when skilled pursuers come up with nothing after decades of trying? Everywhere, yet nowhere.

Someone asked about scientific confirmation coming in my lifetime. I think it already has.

It most certainly hasn't. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Why? I think that areas of the world that have many reports of bipedal primates , or "wildmen" very likely have bipedal primates, or "wildmen". We know they existed in the past. I see no reason why they can't exist in the present. Is there some reason all bipedal primates had to become extinct so glorious man could stand alone (on two feet)?

This is baseless credulity, IMO. South Africa, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Afghanistan, etc. Everywhere, yet nowhere.

For starters, I don't think it's all the same species. If Australian Yowies match the description or Giganto-type creatures (and I don't know that they do), I don't see an insurmountable problem in Giganto getting from Vietnam to Australia.

Ocean levels dropped with water tied up in ice and Australia lost its isolation in the late Pleistocene, which is when the Giganto camp thinks the migration over the Bering land bridge occured.

How impossible does this look?

Did you actually read T. Lancaster's OP AND the links he provided? How well did you read the information you just provided? Did you notice the big blue spot in the middle? Australia has never had any type of connection that wouldn't necessitate some MAJOR swimming for gigantopithecus to get there. You have to engage in some major baseless speculation now.

 

[kitakaze]

Wallace Line. It's got nothing to do with ol' Ray.

ETA: Pleistocene Sea Level Maps. Have a good look. And, yes, if you bothered to check any of the yowie links I gave you would see that descriptions do match bigfoot.

AETA: Don't forget to ask these guys if the've seen any yowie/giganto bones. Australian Archaeological Association. I don't think your PNW no BF fossil excuse applies here.

 

[Correa Neto]

Understood now why I find so interesting the fact bigfeet and yowies have problems with a Wallace line? One at faked footprints the other a major faunal divide.

The strait that nowdays separates Borneo from the Celebes is deep and nowdays characterized by strong currents. Back in the ice ages, it was narrower, but still deep, and probably with even stronger currents.

For a terrestrial animal to cross the gap represented by the Wallace line, there are very few options. If the animal is big and can build a raft, it can cross it. Not very safe, but possible. If its small, it can be carried over "natural rafts". If its small and a good swimmer, it can cross it, with some luck. But big animals that are poor swimmers will most likely become fish food. Even large animal that are good swimmers will have problems, as the absence of tigers and elephants in oceania indicate. It takes sheer ignorance, naïvety, gullibillity or dishonesty to show a map of Oceania and say "look how close they are" as evidence that hulking beasts such as gigantopithecus crossed the Wallace line and became the yowies.

At http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/beginning/book.pdf theres a nice article on yowies (Ralph MoInar - The Evidence for the Yowie). Here'a a small part of it, relevant to the issue:

During the Pleistocene much of the world's water was stored in the polar ice caps, and hence the sea level was lower than at present, perhaps by as much as 200 metres. While this is enough to transform Indonesia from an archipelago into a broad peninsula (Sundaland), it is not enough to join Indonesia to Australia. Thus only those creatures that could cross the two remaining sea gaps, each 50 to 100 miles wide, between Sundaland and Timor and between Timor and the Australian shelf (Sahulland) reached Australia.

The odds of a giant ape being able to make the cross are very low. Not impossible, of course, but very unlikely.

Many of the issues touched there apply to bigfoot. Yowies do nothing to help the cause of bigfeet as real animals. On the contrary, they clearly indicate that widespread myths on wildmen only add credibility to the position bigfeet are only a (modern) myth. I welcome anyone who can provide reliable evidence to show I am wrong.

 

[kitakaze]

I think Kitakaze would make a good token sceptic, actually. He brings up some good points when he's not trying to pound anyone's head into the floor.

I know that was a compliment coming from you so thank you. Just two things though; do you need a token skeptic? And head into floor pounding? How descriptive, but a little dramatic don't you think? Does the pounding have anything to do with being consistently open and welcoming to proponents? I don't know, you know I could always see if I can bring back in some skeptics who think anyone who gives any credence to bigfoot is a complete idiot or maybe some pitbull believer pseudo-skeptics. I think I'd then have my hands fuller than yours.

 

[kitakaze]

Understood now why I find so interesting the fact bigfeet and yowies have problems with a Wallace line? One at faked footprints the other a major faunal divide.

That is rather... *kitakaze looks warily about and drops to a whisper* ...synchronicitous... isn't it?

Yowie Wallace Line Bigfoot

 

[Belz...]

Note the appearance of closed-mindedness in Diogene's statement in my signature line.

Now you're beign just plain dishonest.