What was that, specifically? Maybe I missed it.
I was referring to a real-life meeting at Books-a-Million in Asheville, NC, last night. I didn't see you there.
Why's that and how would you like informed BF skepticism to be represented?
I mean scepticism in general.
I have a real life friend who was trained as a fundamentalist minister. We debate creation vs. "evolutionism" nearly every time we talk. We never get into heated arguments and we both learn. If he were ever to imply I'm delusional, obtuse, stupid, ridiculous or a "wacko" for not agreeing with him, our friendship would end in a heartbeat. The same would happen if I were to do that to him.
I see way too much mockery on the board. That's not good debate, IMO. I would like to see debate on this and other boards carried out with respect for varying points of view and no attempts to humiliate the opposition into submission.
The model sceptic, I think, could be Saskeptic on BFF.
Respectfully, it's not a matter of 'I say/you say'. There is no evidence of bigfoot that has withstood rigourous scientific scrutiny.
I disagree. There's quite a bit. Of course with mainstream science not examining it at all I'm not sure how we're going to define "rigourous scientific scrutiny".
Such a notion is ridiculous for a such a creature that has been reported from Alaska to Iowa to Florida.
And the Aidirondacks.
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?
How many Marmot studies and deer hunts are conducted at night? I don't know that Marmot studies haven't turned up anything else.
Why didn't poachers in Skamania County hunting with dogs at night bag sasquatches instead of bear?
Can you understand the incredulity when skilled pursuers come up with nothing after decades of trying?
Nothing? Hm. They might not think it's nothing. Which pursuers do you have in mind?
Everywhere, yet nowhere.It most certainly hasn't. That's a fact, not an opinion.This is baseless credulity, IMO. South Africa, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Afghanistan, etc. Everywhere, yet nowhere.
And why is that a fact and not an opinion? Is the evidence as good anywhere else as it is for the PNW?
Do you think Yeti and sasquatches are alike?
Did you actually read T. Lancaster's OP AND the links he provided?
Of course. If you read the debate you must know I pointed out some of the links didn't work.
He said 200 miles of open water, but in what era? There's no need for a breeding population to make the trek all at once. Looks like from Vietnam to the islands could all be accomplished by land while water levels were low. Perhaps those islands were connected to mainland Australia at some time. I wasn't able to find much on Australian Land Bridges, so I don't know just what was connected when.
How well did you read the information you just provided? Did you notice the big blue spot in the middle?
Look at the route through the islands.
I've read monkeys could have gotten to South America by floating on big rafts of flotsam. I think that was a serious suggestion. A northern route is more acceptable, but where are the fossils? A primate tooth was found at John Day, which was 20-22 million years old, but where are the rest? Where are the monkey fossils that "should" be strewn all down the continent and through central America? And across Europe?
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.
Which I prefer not to do. I did get a chance to read your last link last night and that does sound like what people see here, but I've seen a youtube of a little towheaded thing running off and that didnt.
I really don't have time to get into this that deeply and about all I have to say, is the Wallace Line is not a wall.
Homo erectus got to Flores somehow (I've read it was never connected to the mainland), and humans got to Australia somehow. What route did they take? According to this, they were only a boatride away:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0224_030224_mungoman.html
And that's from Africa.
...that there's no proof that Roger Patterson actually shot the Patterson Film.
You are always welcome to create a bigfoot board of your own and make up all kinds of rules that suit your taste.