[GypsyWolf]

My question to Neo is this:

You sound reasonably intelligent. And you are a non-believer. Okay, great. So why do you insist on staying in the forums? You aren't going to change anyone's mind. Please don't take this rudely, I just want to know why this is such an important cause. And out of curiosity, what kind of scientific background to you have to back up your claims?

[Smeagol1]

I made a topic about this awhile ago with some of my pics of formations I found. I'll send you it.


Edit: I can't seem to find it it was highly detailed. so heres the pictures.

This post has been edited by Smeagol1: 18 September 2009 - 06:15 PM

[Agent. Mulder]

interesting pics smeagol. anyone coulda made them. they look like tiny little tipis.

[Smeagol1]

I don't doubt it the woods is at least 20 to 30 acres. It's not an extremely large woods most of it's a hayfield. Im in the woods a alot I haven't seen anything new in years.

[Agent. Mulder]

Smeagol1, on 18 September 2009 - 07:22 PM, said:

I don't doubt it the woods is at least 20 to 30 acres. It's not an extremely large woods most of it's a hayfield. Im in the woods a alot I haven't seen anything new in years.

anything else noticable in the area? along the lines of hair, dung, footprints? those would be key things to look for around there.

[Smeagol1]

Agent. Mulder, on 18 September 2009 - 02:25 PM, said:

anything else noticable in the area? along the lines of hair, dung, footprints? those would be key things to look for around there.

if there was anything it's long gone. I found this two years ago.

[Drago]

Agent. Mulder, on 18 September 2009 - 10:24 AM, said:

yeah, thats cool. i know the 'science cant prove a negative' answer. i use it a lot.
i just laugh at people like neo who come on using it, then stating its Fact bigfoot/sasquatch doesnt exist, and seeing him come on here trying to use science to explain the creature or how it cannot exist, and using documented animals and science to explain away bigfoot. then, when i mention something about me missing when science proved it wasnt real, he states 'science cant proved a negative' neo cannt see how stupid he looks. he ignores it.
and it sounds retarded stating theres more chance of a god existing, than an ape. Wow. but. you cant believe in that if you wish.

I've never seen Neo look stupid. I'mma explain this again, one more time, in as clear a manner as I can. Wait, I already did.

Quote

You cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
You CAN however prove that the likelihood of Bigfoot existing is so low as to be nil.

That last one is what Neo does, not prove a negative.

Smeagol1, on 18 September 2009 - 12:59 PM, said:

I made a topic about this awhile ago with some of my pics of formations I found. I'll send you it.


Edit: I can't seem to find it it was highly detailed. so heres the pictures.

Those formations bear an uncanny resemblance to detritus piled up by people to get it out of their way, man. >_> I don't see why the assumption that Bigfoot might be involved came into things. They aren't much for shelter. They would keep neither wind nor rain off, and they certainly wouldn't insulate. And if the woods are that small, markers would be useless.

Agent. Mulder, on 18 September 2009 - 01:25 PM, said:

anything else noticable in the area? along the lines of hair, dung, footprints? those would be key things to look for around there.

The problem with going into the woods looking for fur and dung is that there are an awful lot of critters in there leaving fur and dung behind. If you're not familiar with the dung and fur of typical local creatures, just going in looking around for samples would get you... Not much.

[Agent. Mulder]

Drago, on 18 September 2009 - 08:51 PM, said:

I've never seen Neo look stupid. I'mma explain this again, one more time, in as clear a manner as I can. Wait, I already did.
That last one is what Neo does, not prove a negative.

Wow.
i cared so little i almost passed out. and i guess you dont read much of what Some people reply to him on here. and you didnt understand what i was getting at. which is fine, i dont judge.
i proved my point, not sure why you keep dancing around that old post that no ones cares about anymore.
weve moved on, you should too.

This post has been edited by Agent. Mulder: 18 September 2009 - 08:37 PM

[Smeagol1]

Just ignore Neo he's ignorent.

[Neognosis]

Quote

and using documented animals and science to explain away bigfoot.

What you dont' seem to want to understand, is that nature operates in a protocol of patterns, if you will. No creatures are completely unique. They all exist in a very complex web, and they all build upon the species from which they came. No animal that exists anywhere but the imagination just goes off and makes up its own rules. We dont' have to "use documented animals to explain away bigfoot" because there is no evidence to explain away. What we do, however, is look at how nature works, how the ecosystem works, how all the other biological organisms work, and we look at the ecosystem that bigfoot in which bigfoot is supposed to exist. And from all those things, we logically and rationally conclude that bigfoot is highly unlikely, in fact, almost certainly not real. Because he has to break too many rules of nature to exist, and on top of that, there is absolutely no evidence of bigfoot being real.

If that is ignorant to you, well, so be it. If you want to think that you have "refuted" sound, proven, understood ecological and biological principle with your imagination, so be it. But you are doing yourself a disservice.

Why do I come on here and debate this? That's simple. It is entertaining, and I like to apply logic and science to people's fantastical and imaginative ideas. This forum is great for that.

I am curious what it is you think I am ignorant about, Smeagol. Am I ignorant because I know that your tree branches are perfectly explainable without having to use our imaginations to conclude that they were made by a giant ape?

This post has been edited by Neognosis: 19 September 2009 - 01:11 AM

[catutie]

do i dare fight this....ya i guess. if you would please neo look up bigfoot for a day and just read about him. all the foot prints hair samples yes i will admit blurry photos you may start to wrap your brain around what we are using against you and why it is PRACTICAL to think that. have you ever heard of this statment? its harder to disprove somthing than it is to verify it. so fighing it and saying it doesnt exist is much less likly to be true than it being real. also bigfoot would have to live somwhere would have to have some kind of shelter. im not saying that every formation of sticks is the doing of bigfoot but if its big enough and has decent sized logs that no human or maybe even humans could life we may have to point that way. also bigfoot isnt a new species. if you do that research then you will find there were similar creatures that were on this earth. so just saying no that cant be true is walking on thin ground because really it was here. we thought coelacanth was gone but noooo we found another one. we thought the giant squid could never exist but no we proved that one too. and your thought on that it doesnt apply to the rules of nature is also not true. im going to take elephants for example. DONT GO SAYING OH WE ALREADY KNOW THEY EXIST CAUSE I KNOW IM NOT STUPID. people will go years living in elephants territory maybe even there whole lives not seeing any trace of them. elephants are much bigger than bigfoot. people dont see the impact that the elephants make even though they may look and we know that thousands of elephants exist maybe even tens of thousands and only people that are lucky are able to see them. so to only have maybe about at the most 20 of these around...in the world its barely even possible to see one in hundreds of years. let alone capture them and do testing. and heck if people made them down to such a low population of them left then maybe they are afraid of people and just avoid them and that is why they are always on the move. as to why some people have been attacked by what they claim to be bigfoot, when you pin an animal in a corner you never know what its going to do. so if there afraid of humans and you pin them they are going to run or attack. simple fight or flight principles. why am i even doing this you just gonna come up with some half a**ed excuse to disprove it. ive become bored with bigfoot. theres almost so many sightings and footprints that we have to call it a real animal

[Drago]

Agent. Mulder, on 18 September 2009 - 03:36 PM, said:

Wow.
i cared so little i almost passed out. and i guess you dont read much of what Some people reply to him on here. and you didnt understand what i was getting at. which is fine, i dont judge.
i proved my point, not sure why you keep dancing around that old post that no ones cares about anymore.
weve moved on, you should too.

Oh yes Mulder. I was 'dancing around an old post nobody cares about anymore' by replying to a post you made only four hours before I replied to it. That's so old it's practically necro-posting! How could I have not seen that a lapse of four hours means everyone has moved on! Oh I'm such a fool, I am!

There was no misunderstanding your posts, Mulder. Neo said something you didn't want to hear and you've repeatedly insulted him for it.
And no, you didn't prove your point. Your point was that Neo has been constantly refuted on this forum and that he makes himself look stupid. So far, much like Bigfoot, you've stated something you can't back up with evidence.

I really don't care what some people reply to him with. Believers respond to fact with all kinds of nastiness, but that did not, does not, and will not ever change the facts brought to the table. And those facts are that there is no scientific evidence of Bigfoot's existence in over forty years of intense searching, and that Bigfoot's very existence on the North American continent would require biological and ecological evidence of his presence that it is impossible for him NOT to leave behind should he exist. It isn't being left behind.

catutie: Why do you assume we don't know about Bigfoot and need to spend a day reading about him? I've spent most of my childhood, teenage years and yes, adult life reading about Bigfoot and Nessie and other strange animals and even myths and legends. Is it so hard to believe that we are skeptical of Bigfoot's existence because we're well-informed on the subject matter? That we've chosen the skeptical point of view because there are gaping holes in the logic behind his existence that have never, to our satisfaction, been explained?
People may spend years living in elephant territory and not see an elephant. They will however come across the paths they use, the water holes they use, scat and urine. I'll use this as an example: I once watched a documentary about people in a plane crash in Africa. After they decided to walk away from the wreckage, they reached a point where they were dying of dehydration. Why? Because they found elephants. Elephants are nasty creatures, really, they completely fouled the water they were trying to drink with scat and urine. These people who had no clue what they were doing came across elephants just randomly walking around the elephant's territory. Eventually, by now, someone would have randomly come across Bigfoot and gained verifiable proof of its existence, especially considering population density in the US.
If Bigfoot spent its time 'on the move', that would make it easier to find, not less. The animals that are the hardest to find are the ones that keep hidden in specific places, the easiest ones to find are the ones that are constantly on the move through a general habitat.
We aren't denying Bigfoot because of a lack of thought on our part, we're denying Bigfoot because to us, to believe he exists would require accepting the lack of logical answers to our questions.

[evancj]

Smeagol1, on 18 September 2009 - 06:48 PM, said:

Just ignore Neo he's ignorent.

For those among us whom find reality mundane and boring the line between truth and fantasy sometimes become blurred, and this is where ignorance of the natural world and it's processes is born. And for those whom refuse to consider the glaring lack of biological, and physical evidence to support the existence of these so called "cryptid" animals are nothing more than perpetrators of ignorance.

Neo is far from ignorant in his understanding of this concept and he is right in his efforts to expose this ignorance for what it really is.

[catutie]

ok and we have found the foot prints and scat and hair that we just cant identify that is in bigfoot territory or well where he is seen. if bigfoot is moving away from us when we see him then. my theory is that the indians and people before our time would attack bigfoot like creatures and they were everywhere but people wiped them almost to extinction and they have become afraid of humans. just like i think of about the thylacine. and if its like some animals it would see us before we see it. then try its best to stay out of sight. and most of that anyway was directed to neo

[GypsyWolf]

To call Neo ignorant is a bit rude so much. I don't find him rude, I find him rather interesting. He is fighting a cause he believes in and I suppose --even though I don't get why-- that's admirable. As much as I disagree with him, I'll support his right to an opinion. And I will argue just as hard that my own evidence and studies show big foot IS possible.. but thats the joy of debate I guess.

This post has been edited by GypsyWolf: 20 September 2009 - 03:26 PM