185 replies to this topic

[Night Walker]

Edited by Night Walker, 04 February 2012 - 01:23 AM.

[hucksterfoot]

Night Walker, on 04 February 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

LMAO.. :]]]

Too funny

[hucksterfoot]

Here is the Smeja interview:

[DieChecker]

Myles, on 02 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

They have found a scull of a 30 foot crocodile that lived 95 million years ago.

Still no bigoot bones.

Yeah, but a month ago if you'd posted that there was a giant unknown crocodilian that had a skull like such-n-such, people would have dismissed you and said, "Show me this croc... Can't?? Well then it never existed." Just as if you said there once was a saber toothed bear, or some such, people would not believe it till the fossil shows up.

A North American ape fossil might still appear.

Will that proove bigfoot?? Very unlikely, even if the skeletal remains fit the Bigfoot profile.

[orangepeaceful79]

DieChecker, on 05 February 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Yeah, but a month ago if you'd posted that there was a giant unknown crocodilian that had a skull like such-n-such, people would have dismissed you and said, "Show me this croc... Can't?? Well then it never existed." Just as if you said there once was a saber toothed bear, or some such, people would not believe it till the fossil shows up.

A North American ape fossil might still appear.

Will that proove bigfoot?? Very unlikely, even if the skeletal remains fit the Bigfoot profile.

Finding a fossil of something that lived long ago is different than Bigfoot, as supposedly Bigfoot lives today, and there is to present no irrefutable evidence of it.  If someone were to come up with some bones that matched the morphology that we've come to expect from bigfoot AND their written up analysis stood up to scientific peer review then that would go a long way toward convincing me that it was real or had been at one time.  

I think, unless I am mistaken, that the point of mentioning the 30 ft croc fossil is that we have evidence of something that died out a long time ago and is done making new crocs, for good, while in the other hand we have another something - which if you quote BFRO might number anywhere from 2000-6000 in the US, and nobody anywhere can come up with a shred of evidence for the things that has ever stood up to peer review.  nothing.  The most logical explanation at this point is that it doesn't exist.  Every other reason put forth to explain the dearth of evidence is just excuse making by the wishful.

[Neognosis]

yes, that's correct. we find fossils of animals that have been extinct for a very long time... but nothing from an animal supposedly still leaving fresh bodies?

That's literally unbelievable.

Plus, if someone had said "there used to be a giant 30 foot crocodile that lived here hundreds of thousands of years ago, we would have said "do you have any evidence to support this idea?"

And look, there is.

That's the difference between bigfoot and a 30 foot crocodile.

[evancj]

DieChecker, on 05 February 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Yeah, but a month ago if you'd posted that there was a giant unknown crocodilian that had a skull like such-n-such, people would have dismissed you and said, "Show me this croc... Can't?? Well then it never existed." Just as if you said there once was a saber toothed bear, or some such, people would not believe it till the fossil shows up.

A North American ape fossil might still appear.

Will that proove bigfoot?? Very unlikely, even if the skeletal remains fit the Bigfoot profile.

We have loads of giant croc evidence (not just the one referenced in this thread) from all over the world. So it is not out of the realm of reality for someone to suggest they existed.

[Myles]

orangepeaceful79, on 06 February 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Finding a fossil of something that lived long ago is different than Bigfoot, as supposedly Bigfoot lives today, and there is to present no irrefutable evidence of it.  If someone were to come up with some bones that matched the morphology that we've come to expect from bigfoot AND their written up analysis stood up to scientific peer review then that would go a long way toward convincing me that it was real or had been at one time.  

I think, unless I am mistaken, that the point of mentioning the 30 ft croc fossil is that we have evidence of something that died out a long time ago and is done making new crocs, for good, while in the other hand we have another something - which if you quote BFRO might number anywhere from 2000-6000 in the US, and nobody anywhere can come up with a shred of evidence for the things that has ever stood up to peer review.  nothing.  The most logical explanation at this point is that it doesn't exist.  Every other reason put forth to explain the dearth of evidence is just excuse making by the wishful.

You are correct Orange.   The point is the 95 millions year old part.  To think about how long that is and how much has changed in 95 million years is amazing.  Yet we still find evidence.  If a giant ape-man was living with us now, we would have evidence.  It's not a rodent, it's not an insect, it is not even a bird.   It's an 8-10ft ape-man.

[hucksterfoot]

Noah would have drowned trying to find a Bigfoot.

[whatsthat]

I dont doubt these people saw something. Once out walking I was sure there was a man in camo looking at me, it was a smooth stone on top of mossy rocks. Must have beenplaced by people probably recently.

Is bigfoot a possibility. Yes, but an unlikely one.

The possibility seems remote. The supporters subsribe to absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Chldren feel the same way about monsters under the bed. It seems highly unlikely a large animal however secretive could leave zero,nada, nothing.

There is a difference between a possibility and probability. Is it possible there is a bigfoot? Sure.Is it probable. No, its extremely remote.

Its in loch ness territory for me. The idea it could go undetected and not leave a shred of evidence nor any evidence of such a creature in the fossil record of N.America for so long requires suspension of disbelief. Its justseems to improbable at this stage.

[grendals_bane]

jbondo, on 02 February 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

There is so much the OP has left out that it would take me quite some time to respond. One thing is making the assumption that evolution is fact and then basing his entire argument from that.

I may be a couple of days late in responding as I have been away from home for a few days, but as they say better late than never.

As I stated in my OP it was not an exhaustive list, it was more just some key points, if I wished to do a thorough breakdown I would write a book.

Also, I based my arguement on evolution as it is a fact therefore it is not an assumption, unlike Bigfoot which has not been proven as a fact thus making Bigfoot the assumption in this discussion.

Edited by grendals_bane, 06 February 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[DieChecker]

evancj, on 06 February 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

We have loads of giant croc evidence (not just the one referenced in this thread) from all over the world. So it is not out of the realm of reality for someone to suggest they existed.

We also have evidence of homonids, if you include humans, from all over the globe. So why would a 2nd NA ape (Fossils) be out of the question?

[DieChecker]

orangepeaceful79, on 06 February 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

If someone were to come up with some bones that matched the morphology that we've come to expect from bigfoot AND their written up analysis stood up to scientific peer review then that would go a long way toward convincing me that it was real or had been at one time.

And wouldn't you agree there is still some chance of such a fossil being found?

Quote

The most logical explanation at this point is that it doesn't exist.  Every other reason put forth to explain the dearth of evidence is just excuse making by the wishful.

Based on the collected evidence to date, I have to agree. I just think that perhaps more evidence might be found.

I even said that a fossil would not be positive proof of bigfoot, only that another kind of ape lived in NA in the past. We'd need, basically, a body, living or dead, to confirm if the ape known as bigfoot is real.

[Night Walker]

whatsthat, on 06 February 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Chldren feel the same way about monsters under the bed.

[evancj]

DieChecker, on 06 February 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

We also have evidence of homonids, if you include humans, from all over the globe. So why would a 2nd NA ape (Fossils) be out of the question?

Well considering the fact that hominid fossils (except bigfoot) can be found all over the world in all sorts of terrain and climatic conditions speaks volumes against the existence of bigfoot.

And the fact that we have fossil evidence of ONLY modern humans (in the form of fossilized poo http://news.national...-americans.html ) living in North America dating back 14,500 years ago and not a single shred of any other species of ape other than sapiens EVER living in North America adds even more volumes to the already massive stack of evidence against the existence of bigoot.

Edited by evancj, 07 February 2012 - 02:19 AM.