Why the Continued Interest in Bigfoot on This Forum

[kitakaze]

All people who would like to join the Dogswitcher Fan Club should take some time to put this in their pipe and smoke it:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sasquat...rnette-from-NC

I must join the Dogswitcher Fan Club. First, I should listen to the Dogswitcher speak his native language. I lived in North Carolina for many years. I could translate most of his "southern" slang. you seem to have part of it down, such as hay-ed, for head. Let me have a listen. Be back soon.

Amen to that, good brother. You go on and get tuh listenin' tuh that there show an' you gon' done be fixin' tuh poop yer britches, I tell you huuuwhat. Then you just hustle quick and sign yerself on up, lickity-split.

The Dogswitchers Fan Club- three's company...

 

[makaya325]

As opposed to "genuine" reports in NA from forest rangers or police?

I don't get the difference of genuine?

Here is what i mean:

Sherpas report a strange, yet real, 5-6ft robust ape in the Himalayas. At the same time, People in Russia report primitive looking humans with Brow Ridges and a sloping posture.

One of these reports, both very real, are told throughout NA, and people begin to see monsters, specifically in Dark, Remote forests In NA.

 

[zerospeaks]

wait.... what's a "real" report?

 

[desertgal]

People need Monsters. They represent our Fears, dreams, and sometimes, our hopes. We have this need to believe in a specifically large, Law breaking, camera shy, blurry, carcass burying mammal

No. We don't. You obviously do, but don't cram the rest of the human race into that illogical slot. The many of us who are capable of critical thought and acquiring and applying factual knowledge don't have a 'need to believe' in monsters. We find enough 'monsters' in real life-work, worry, bills, illness, etc. We have no desire to create imaginary ones.

One of these reports, both very real...

"Both very real"? What are you talking about? Where is the verified evidence that any of these reports, wherever they happen, are 'very real'?

You're talking out your ass again, Mak.

 

[Vortigern99]

What about the "wild man" theory?

That bigfoot is basically inbred humans who live on the outskirts of society because they are... well... kind of messed up.

This theory would explain why there is no large breeding population that we can find, and also why bigfoot is seen in every culture.

So family has sex with themselves out on a remote farm untill.....

There are a number of problems with this theory from an anthropological perspective.

One, where are the tools? Genus Homo is identified in part by our tool use: stone axes, control of fire, cooked food, to list the most basic features since the first species identified as Homo, H. habilis lived some 2 million years ago. If BF is genus Homo, it must use tools of some kind. Where are these? Where are the remains of the ancient tools, and where are the examples of new ones? (Paleontology and archeology are thriving fields in NA, BTW. How could professional, college-funded diggers, whose careers are based in making new and important discoveries, miss what must be a massive load of such evidence?)

Two, how do we explain BF's body hair? Genus Homo is identified in part by a lack of thick body hair and the presence of sweat glands, which we evolved (the current thinking goes) in order to withstand longer durations in the sun, traveling and hunting on the East African savanna. In short, an animal with such full body hair or fur as BF is reported to have would not be classified as genus Homo.

Three, in order to remain a genetically viable species, the minimum population of this animal would have to number in the thousands. This counters the contention that "there is no large breeding population that we can find".

Four, if "bigfoot is seen in every culture" (which isn't correct to begin with), are you suggesting that this same hairy phenotype has branched off coincidentally from the main population in every region of the earth where humans reside? What would be the mechanism by which this astounding event would have occurred?

Five: "So family has sex with themselves out on a remote farm untill...." What farm? A bigfoot farm? Where are these farms? What are you talking about? This theory is ridiculous and I'm now ashamed I addressed it so seriously.

 

[Apology]

There are a number of problems with this theory from an anthropological perspective.

One, where are the tools? Genus Homo is identified in part by our tool use: stone axes, control of fire, cooked food, to list the most basic features since the first species identified as Homo, H. habilis lived some 2 million years ago. If BF is genus Homo, it must use tools of some kind. Where are these? Where are the remains of the ancient tools, and where are the examples of new ones? (Paleontology and archeology are thriving fields in NA, BTW. How could professional, college-funded diggers, whose careers are based in making new and important discoveries, miss what must be a massive load of such evidence?)

(respectfully snipped)

Maybe you weren't around for the legendary Creekfreak threads, but Creekfreak claimed that Bigfoot used a stolen screwdriver to poke holes in cans of Cowboy Billy's Baked Beans, so I guess Bigfoot would use OUR tools. Bigfoot also stole bacon from Creekfreak's barbecue, so he apparently knew how to use a modern gas grill as well.

Just for the record, I don't believe in Bigfoot, I was just a big fan of Creekfreak's stories about Bigfoot. Creekfreak definitely knew how to spin a yarn about Bigfoot.

 

[Vortigern99]

In that case, we can add this peculiar behavior to a long lost of reported BF activities which have no known precedent in the animal world. A human-like species with a precision hand grip, opposable thumbs and the intelligence to employ human-made tools, but no capacity to develop tools of its own? Preposterous.

(I realize you, Apology, are not advancing this theory, but it needed rebuttal all the same.)

 

[Alt+F4]

That bigfoot is basically inbred humans who live on the outskirts of society because they are... well... kind of messed up.

You mean like fundamentalist Mormons?

 

[makaya325]

No. We don't.

Tell that to those who created Dragons in the sky's, serpents in the ocean, and wildmen in the forests.

"Both very real"? What are you talking about? Where is the verified evidence that any of these reports, wherever they happen, are 'very real'?

I was speaking hypothetically

 

[GT/CS]

Vort, if you have a few extra hours here is Creekfreak's thread. It's amusing to say the least.

 

[makaya325]

Vort, if you have a few extra hours here is Creekfreak's thread. It's amusing to say the least.

What other boards did Creek belong to?

 

[desertgal]

Tell that to those who created Dragons in the sky's, serpents in the ocean, and wildmen in the forests.

I just did.

I was speaking hypothetically

You usually are.

 

[makaya325]

I just did.

No you did not. You made a rash generalization about proponents regarding cryptozoology.

 

[desertgal]

No you did not. You made a rash generalization about proponents regarding cryptozoology.

No. I didn't.

Neerrooowww...

 

[makaya325]

No. I didn't.

You said "People like you may create imaginary monsters".

 

[desertgal]

You said "People like you may create imaginary monsters".

No. I didn't. I was addressing you specifically. Thank you, though, for finally admitting that you are still a proponent of Bigfoot. I doubt anyone here really bought your "new man" schtick, but it's always good to have the truth out in the open.

Considering you just lumped the entire human race into a "we" that "needs to believe in a specifically large, Law breaking, camera shy, blurry, carcass burying mammal", don't speak about 'rash generalizations' until you stop making them.

Yawn. Moving on...

 

[snoop_doxie]

Amen to that, good brother. You go on and get tuh listenin' tuh that there show an' you gon' done be fixin' tuh poop yer britches, I tell you huuuwhat. Then you just hustle quick and sign yerself on up, lickity-split.

The Dogswitchers Fan Club- three's company...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1310[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1310[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1310[/qimg]

Just got back online. Friggin' Comcast. SHEEEEEEEEEEit!
He shore is country, ain't he?
Love to listen to it. I miss the south. Got one more to finish high school, then I'll be outta here. YEEEEHAAAAAAH!

I am in the Dogswitchers Fan Club, and I'm damned proud of it!


I have to add that this is one of the reasons there is still interest in Bigfoot.
Thar ain't no secha thang, but the folks here are homey.

 

[makaya325]

Thank you, though, for finally admitting that you are still a proponent of Bigfoot.

I do not identify as a proponent. I am fully aware that its existence is a near biological impossibility, breaking too many natural laws. I do consider myself romantic about mystery hominids around the world.


Did i say "Every single person"? No I did not.

 

[desertgal]

Did i say "Every single person"? No I did not.

Don't speak to rash generalizations until you stop making them.

 

[EHocking]

...Every living thing on this planet HAS been found. I am pretty sure Fish & Game would know of Deformed humans living in the wilderness.

... and you harangue others for posting gross generalisations?
Even funnier considering your previous post:

A group of individuals MAY discover new species of an already known organism once every few months, but not daily.

I know for a fact that Wildlife Groups/conservationists spend day in and day out, scanning a specific area for a specific species, and having a pretty high success rate.

you have a cite for this, one presumes?

[cough][cough]Wolverine..
[cough]Ivory-billed Woodpecker[cough]