Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Sasquatch sighting in Nunavik


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#106    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:43 AM

Judging height at a distance is tricky at best even for police when they saw a perp at distance. Throw in that they were probably startled or just plain scared, which would be a normal reaction to something like that and a good estimate goes out the window.


#107    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:33 PM

Quote

This was from years ago, when Makaya (Spelling?) was always looking up odd facts to show BF was real. There was some fossils selling site, that had 150% sized stone hand axes that were out of Tennessee or somesuch place that were for sale. The common opinion at the time, I believe was that they were practice pieces, because they were rather big to be practical in use.

Otherwise, I've never found a site that specifically documented large stone tools in North America. Though I can work on it....

= "no"

Quote

So you can logically go in circles all day long and show Neo how the lack of bones is totally possible, statistically and scientifically, and you can show how the ecology and habitats that BF supposedly lives in CAN support BF, mathmatically and scientifically.



Except that has never happened.

Quote

Is there any neanderthal bones dig sites that are Not in a cave? I think there may be some burials that were above ground, but I can't think of a single where "Random death" neanderthal remains have been found.

http://en.wikipedia....rthal#Discovery


Just LOOK at all that stuff we've discovered about Neanderthals... and they haven't walked the earth in 1/2 a million years.... What do you need to tell yourself in order to reconcile that we have not found anything, not one single shred of actual evidence, for a giant 650 lb ape living in our own backyards?

Caves and quarries. Because Neanderthal didn't build settlements.
However, other cultures DID build settlements, and the remains of their settlements were found.

How does this relate to bigfoot? Idk. I suspect it doesn't, as neanderthals were real, and bigfoot isn't.

Quote

How does science find out what bears eat? They collect the poop right? It surely is not from wandering randomly in the woods and hoping to find something that was gnawed on by a bear. Bones are found all the time in the woods, and few people will actually go over and examine the bones as to what creature probably gnawed on them.

It's a little different with bears, as bears are real.

If you look here, you'll see something far more rare than the remains of a bear's meal.
http://ck-9.blogspot...ct-1072010.html

cougar kill sites. COUGARS. Rare, yet here we have two documented sites where a cougar dragged off some prey and ate it.

Why do we have documented cougar kill sites and none from bigfoot?

You know why.

The same reason we have neanderthal remains
prehistoric homosapien settlement remains
evidence of previous homo species culture (neanderthals with feathers used as ornamentation, paintings, tools, etc)
and NONE of that from bigfoot, a species supposedly still walking our ecosystem.

Here's more bear kill sites:

http://www.flickr.co...ams/6060535383/


They can tell that it was a bear that did the killing and eating, and not a cougar or a pack of wolves. Because of the evidence that is left behind. Why is there none for bigfoot? Come on, you already know why.

Quote

And do you have that training? If no, then how can you make the claim here that these "ologists" would be able to do it? Based on episodes of  the "Bones" TV show?

No, I read what these "ologists" report. It is interesting. When learning about something that I have no education in, I believe those that do have the education and experience.

Quote


Culture has nothing to do with if a creature has thumbs or not. Lemurs have thumbs, but don't have culture.


Animals that don't have thumbs, but exhibit "culture," don't make things if they don't have thumbs.Although the other ape species don't make things to a significant extent either, but nor do they have the ability to hide and avoid detection, like bigfoot does, apparently. So, how do you reconcile the idea that bigfoot is so smart and passes along the culture of non-detection, yet leaves no evidence of that culture? Maybe he doesn't have thumbs, so he can't write or make paintings or beads or necklaces or jewelery or weapons and tools, like the homo class does and did?

Quote

Chimps have culture and tools... and have left zero fossilized tools or campsites.

They also don't have the ability or intelligence to avoid modern detection. And they are real. So two differences between chimps and bigfoots.
They also live in an entirely different ecosystem than bigfoot. And you are mistaken, we have observed chimps using what is really a stretch to call "tools," and when they discard them, we go and pick them up and examine them. But not with bigfoot. We can neither observe bigfoot using a tool, or bigfoot himself.


Quote

Your position is based on a scientific view point based on your Opinion of what constitutes the evidence. It is really only your opinion. Bigfoot does not violate more then a handful of natural laws


Science is not an opinion. What is "evidence" is not subjective. There are rules for what can be considered "evidence," and of what. It is not about opinion, it is about science.

Bigfoot violates many, many laws. I don't even know where to start, so I guess I'll throw out a question: How does a giant man-ape species survive with the prerequisite number required for species survival, and ALSO not leave any evidence of their existence?

If you can explain how that is possible, without resorting to fantasy and semi-explanations that also defy what we know about our ecosystem and the animals in it, you'll have a good discussion on your hands.


Quote

Neo is only calling evidence what he sees as proof, and thus he says there is no evidence.

Again, no. There are rules to "evidence," it is not about an opinion. This misunderstanding, and the willful misinterpretation of "evidence," and the acceptance of things as "evidence" of something when they clearly are not, is what gets us in this entertaining discussion.


#108    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,091 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:49 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 09 October 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I don't know if that's been touched on or not, but you're quite right in that the larger a creature is the most food it's going to need to stay alive. There are a lot of calories available in the wild, but only during certain times of the year. Unless this thing hibernates between eating sessions.
And yet certain types of elephant thrive in seemingly mostly empty deserts.  Moose eat pine needles, no shortage of those in forests of north america.


#109    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:29 PM

Quote

And yet certain types of elephant thrive in seemingly mostly empty deserts.  Moose eat pine needles, no shortage of those in forests of north america.

And those elephants have an identifiable ecological footprint, and so do moose.

When there is a shortage of food, hungry moose start showing up in places that they shouldn't.
When the moose population is too high or too low, it has an impact that ripples through all corners of their ecosystem and touches predators, vegetation, and everything else like a big web.

We don't see anything that indicates that a species of giant ape is a factor in our ecosystem though.


#110    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,091 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

Racoons are without question an animal in North America.  So what is thier unique identifiable ecological footprint?  Just trying to get clarification on what exactly you're talking about.


#111    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:47 PM

View PostOverSword, on 10 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Racoons are without question an animal in North America.  So what is thier unique identifiable ecological footprint?  Just trying to get clarification on what exactly you're talking about.

I get what Neo is saying and I get where you're coing from as well. However, a Raccoon isn't a huge creature and unless you have an infestation of them, odds are you'll never see their impact on  the local environment. Thing is we're talking about a creature who is supposed to be between 6 and 9 feet tall and weight between 600 and 1000 Lbs. That's one BFC! (big fricking critter) It's hard to speculate on something that we don't know exists, but it's going to take a lot of calories to keep something like that alive. Here in the Southeast, deer don't hibernate, but they do manage to find food. Granted they aren't as large as the alleged Biggy, but there are an awful lot of them that have to eat and they manage just fine. They do leave signs of their foraging around. I can't say I've ever run across anything that would lead me to believe that it was a Bigfoot foraging, but then I'm no expert on them and don't claim to be.


#112    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:40 PM

View PostOverSword, on 10 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Racoons are without question an animal in North America.  So what is thier unique identifiable ecological footprint?  Just trying to get clarification on what exactly you're talking about.

Just some impacts of raccoons:

I stole this info from Cato Termite and Pest Control on just evidence of raccoons around humans.

During the winter food sources become scarce for animals such as raccoons and possums and shelter from the elements is essential.When foraging for food possums and raccoons will take advantage of open garbage cans and accessible pet food.When looking for shelter attic space in homes and buildings  provide shelter and warmth. If you allow them access, they will readily move in and stay till spring.They can cause damage including torn insulation, chewed electric wires and odors from their excrement.
If you suspect animals are in your attic then it's time to evict them! If raccoons and possums are active in your yard, they can tear up turf, and destroy bird feeders and flower beds

If you suspect there is an animal prowling around your home look for signs of damage, droppings, hair or perhaps tracks. Raccoon droppings resemble those of a medium dog and may contain seeds or other undigested particles such as fruit.They are often at the base of trees, along fence lines, woodpiles, on roofs or in unsealed attics. You will want to keep an eye out for...

Not all the above behavior is unique to raccoons but  you get a definite possible culprit. And their prints, fur, and droppings, and litter of babies would be unique and identifiable. These are less than 40 lb creatures that are heard and seen as well.


"A large number of raccoons are struck by cars as they are feeding on other road-killed animals such as snakes, turtles and possums. Raccoons are the most common carriers of rabies in the United States, especially in the east." http://www.terrierma...itatraccoon.htm

Edited by QuiteContrary, 10 October 2012 - 09:42 PM.


#113    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:55 PM

View PostBionic Bigfoot, on 09 October 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

I'm actually quite surprised to read so many skeptical comments on a board about the unexplained.  I figured that the majority of members would be more open minded to the possibilties of the unknown.  Just because there is a lack of physical evidence of something, truly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I don't know how many of the members here believe in God or not, but if you do, then you are believing in an entity that offers no physical proof of existing whatsoever.

However, some of you have given great comments and feedback and I thank you for them.   The topic of this post and its intial story isn't remarkable by any means, certainly not a ground shaking story, but it is current and somewhat interesting.   The subject as a whole IS very interesting though and if you dig deep enough, weed out the lies, fakes and hoaxes, you can still find cases that defy explanation.  :alien:

I am a skeptic - its true.  This is a discussion forum, and just because some of us aren't ardent believers in the paranormal doesn't mean that we don't care about it.  I'd love to believe in this stuff, I think the world would be a much more interesting place if even half of these creatures were proven to exist.  I don't care if you believe either.  Thats your deal.  Where I step in on discussions though is to dispute what is or isn't fact.  We are all entitled to our own beliefs and opinions but not our own facts.

Unfortunately what cryptozoologists do a lot of is inventing facts.  If you type "Bigfoot Facts" into a google search it will yield 5850 results!  Which is preposterous because NO facts have been established about Bigfoot, because the creature is as of yet unproven and unstudied scientifically.

  What science, despite its many foibles and imperfections, attempts to do is to establish known fact by a rigorous process that works the same way everytime and is reviewed in the scientific community by the peers of whatever scientist is bringing the facts to the table.   This process helps to make sure that known facts are the same for everybody.

Cryptozoology on the other hand refuses to follow these rules. "Facts" in the crypto world can be asserted by anyone with an imagination.  Anyone here on the forum who knows smugfish/taleormaneinafog/sunnyblues knows just how ridiculously far this process can go for some folks.

Facts are facts.  They are there to help us make sense of the world and there is a process by which they are validated.   When the cryptozoological world starts playing by these rules and establishes as fact some of their creatures, then we'll have a totally different landscape on discussion boards like this one. Until then it will always be the people who trust in facts debating the people who trust in fallible eyewitness accounts, reams of non-evidence and blurry photos and video, and other things of similar non-merit.

Edited by orangepeaceful79, 10 October 2012 - 09:56 PM.


#114    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:24 PM

Quote

However, a Raccoon isn't a huge creature and unless you have an infestation of them, odds are you'll never see their impact on  the local environment.

I am not a wildlife biologist, so I can't give you specifics, HOWEVER, as as sportsman and an outdoorsman, I can make a few semi-educated guesses:

Raccoons are one of the most opportunistic and omnivorous eaters. They eat shellfish, fish, mice, worms, grubs, acorns, walnuts, whatever fruit they can find, frogs, and generally anything that is not poisonous that they can easily get ahold of.

Now, what EATS the raccoon?  Bobcats, Coyotes, Great Horned Owls.

Now, there are always as many raccoons as can be supported by the environment. This means that a LOT of raccoons starve to death when there is a problem. For example, a harsh winter, or a drought, or a disease that kills a lot of the amphibians they feed on. We can observe this happen. When this happens, the things that EAT the raccoon suffer, as there are fewer raccoons around to eat. So, the great horned owl loses some members, fewer coyotes make it, and even fewer bobcats are around.

When there is a season or a year that results in a LOT of the random things that the racoon eats, we OBSERVE more raccoons. And this in turn supports more predators, and there are more cars hitting raccoons. The earth achieves equilabrium.

If there are not enough raccoons (say, rabies or distempter decimate the local population), their predators suffer, and also the things that the raccoon eats overpopulate and overpressure the ecosystem. Too many frogs, grubs, salamanders, etc. And they in turn effect the thigns that they eat. And that eat them.... there might be more great blue herrons as the raccoon population decreases, as they fill in the niche.

In areas where the predators (the owl, coyote, bobcat, etc) are hunted out, we end up with too many raccoons, and they often starve to death as they over pressure the local ecology, and/or they end up in our garbages, attics, biting people, getting into scraps with cats and dogs, chewing on wires and stuff like that.


So, you see, even the tiniest creature is a piece of the puzzle that is the ecology. Their populations IMPACT the environment, and we can observe those effects. But we don't see this, at all, with a species of 700 lb ape. Why not? You know why not.


So, the raccoon population affects the coyote population, the amphibian and shelfish population, the number of acorns and walnuts that will take seed, etc. etc.

But one thing the size of the raccoon population does NOT affect is bigfoot. Because bigfoot is not part of our ecosystem. Because he is imaginary, and there is no evidence that he is anything but, and no imprint on the ecosystem made by him.


#115    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:28 PM

Oh, a little personal anectdote.... One year I had an infestation of grubs in my lawn. I don't use pesticides, and the weather was just right, and I ended up with a grub infestation. And I started waking up to parts of my lawn torn up, as if someone took a metal rake to parts of it.

Raccoons were tearing up my lawn to get the grubs. That year, I'll wager, the raccoon population was pretty high, because even the tiny grub has an affect on the environment, in this specific case... the raccoon population.


#116    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:04 AM

Imagine what your lawn would have looked like if a Bigfoot was after those grubs?


#117    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:14 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 11 October 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

Imagine what your lawn would have looked like if a Bigfoot was after those grubs?

Hahaha  Well played.  Love that image.  Squatch grubbin'


#118    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,882 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

View PostNeognosis, on 10 October 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

= "no"
I said I'd work on it.... sheesh.

Quote

Except that has never happened.
Denial, just as I said....

Quote

Just LOOK at all that stuff we've discovered about Neanderthals... and they haven't walked the earth in 1/2 a million years.... What do you need to tell yourself in order to reconcile that we have not found anything, not one single shred of actual evidence, for a giant 650 lb ape living in our own backyards?
I thought it was only 50,000 years, not 500,000? Genetic testing has shown that some neanderthal DNA is in modern humans from around 50,000 to 80,000 years ago. You're not helping your arguement Neo with wrong statements.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Neanderthal

What will reconcile my defense of the small chance BF is real? Only time and/or much better technology (satalite imaging), I am afraid.

Quote

Caves and quarries. Because Neanderthal didn't build settlements.
However, other cultures DID build settlements, and the remains of their settlements were found.

How does this relate to bigfoot? Idk. I suspect it doesn't, as neanderthals were real, and bigfoot isn't.
It goes directly to how many BFs have been reported living in caves? Very few, as far as I know..... If they don't live in or near caves, then they are not going to leave bones in caves, now are they? And if almost all ape and homo bones are known from caves, then why are we assuming that BF bones would be found in significant amounts outside caves? Especially if its populationi has never been very big. Neanderthals lived across Europe and into Asia, yet their population never really took off, though they had almost 800,000 years to get established. Some estimates say that there never was more then 20,000 neanderthals alive at any one time,

Unless they bury their dead. (Of which I've never been a believer). I think if any BFs were buried in ancient times (Such as some say are the various "giant" skeletons supposedly found at the turn of the 20th century in various mound burials), then the Native Americans would have been the ones doing the burying. Most NA cultures revered the wild man.

Quote

They can tell that it was a bear that did the killing and eating, and not a cougar or a pack of wolves. Because of the evidence that is left behind. Why is there none for bigfoot? Come on, you already know why.
:yes:

But, where is the fun in that??

Quote

No, I read what these "ologists" report. It is interesting. When learning about something that I have no education in, I believe those that do have the education and experience.
And since every such thing you've read has an non-bigfoot bias/conclusion, you believe that BF is not there, right? But, what would such an 'ologist, conclude if confronted with what appeared to be ape gnaw marks? My Opinion? 1) That it was humans, or 2) that it was some creature that would leave similar gnaw marks. Thus any evidence would be neglected, since BF has never left a body or teeth to analiyze and put into the literature or databases what kind of marks they would leave. If a BF was found, I think it likely that re-examination of some collected materials would show mis-identification. It would not be the first time such happened, IMHO.

Quote

So, how do you reconcile the idea that bigfoot is so smart and passes along the culture of non-detection, yet leaves no evidence of that culture?
Higher intellegence.

Quote

They also don't have the ability or intelligence to avoid modern detection. And they are real. So two differences between chimps and bigfoots. They also live in an entirely different ecosystem than bigfoot. And you are mistaken, we have observed chimps using what is really a stretch to call "tools," and when they discard them, we go and pick them up and examine them. But not with bigfoot. We can neither observe bigfoot using a tool, or bigfoot himself.
How would you tell an axe, or a knife, or a blanket that was used by a BF from one that was left by a hiker or logger? How would a broken branch used by a BF, much like twigs used by chimps be recognized for what it was?

You forget that BF is supposedly smarter then a chimp, also they would be mostly solitary and also they would be nomadic.

And was not the Billi Ape (A sub-culture of regular chimps) not found just in 2003? True, that is a different environment and a very dangerous place to do research. Yet the point remains that it is not impossible.

Here is a description of the search for the Billi Ape....

Quote

When Karl Ammann, a Swiss photographer and anti-bushmeat campaigner, first visited the region in 1996, he was looking for gorillas, but instead discovered a skull that had dimensions like that of a chimpanzee, but with a prominent crest like that of a gorilla. Ammann purchased a photograph, taken by a motion-detecting camera, from poachers that captured an image of what looked like immense chimpanzees. Ammann also measured a fecal dropping three times as big as chimp dung and footprints as large as or larger than a gorilla's.

In 2000, Ammann returned to the area described by the bushmeat hunter with a group of ape researchers. Although they did not find a live Bili ape, they did find several well-worn ground nests, characteristic of gorillas rather than chimpanzees, in swampy river beds.

In 2001, an international team of scientists, including George Schaller of the Wildlife Conservation Society and Mike Belliveau of Harvard University were recruited by Karl Ammann to search for the elusive Bili ape, but the venture came up empty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

So, basically science went out looking for these Bili Apes with nothing more then an unusual chimp skull, footprints, a turd, a blurry picture and the words of the local people that this was a totally different animal.

Turns out they are simply culturally different chimps, but isn't that what many are suggesting about BF? That it is actually human?

Quote

Science is not an opinion. What is "evidence" is not subjective. There are rules for what can be considered "evidence," and of what. It is not about opinion, it is about science.
So link me to the Rules??? I would know what would be evidence and what can not be evidence. Because you are talking about Proof, not evidence. Evidence is ANYTHING that has been collected. If it is submitted, it is evidence... but that does not make it Proof. A footprint, a howl recording, a hair from a bison... these are definately evidence... just not proof.

Quote



Bigfoot violates many, many laws. I don't even know where to start, so I guess I'll throw out a question: How does a giant man-ape species survive with the prerequisite number required for species survival, and ALSO not leave any evidence of their existence?

If you can explain how that is possible, without resorting to fantasy and semi-explanations that also defy what we know about our ecosystem and the animals in it, you'll have a good discussion on your hands.
Well, clearly whatever I post will not be good enough. If I pointed out that individual humans have lived for decades out in the woods without being detected, you'll say that those are individuals. If I state they are intellegent, you'll simply state that random accidents must occur. If I point out they must have a very low population density, you'll simply ask how they then communicate and breed. So, regardless of if I can explain away 90% of arguements, and these threads are full of such arguements, then there will always be something that can not be explained and thus, if even one thing can not be explained you will Poo-Poo that 90% was covered, and claim the Victory.

As you say... I don't possess the knowledge to successfully state why evidence is missing, other then with "fantasy" suggestions, common logic and suppositions.

Quote

Again, no. There are rules to "evidence," it is not about an opinion. This misunderstanding, and the willful misinterpretation of "evidence," and the acceptance of things as "evidence" of something when they clearly are not, is what gets us in this entertaining discussion.
And that is your Opinion.

Edited by DieChecker, 11 October 2012 - 09:18 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#119    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

Quote

It goes directly to how many BFs have been reported living in caves? Very few, as far as I know..... If they don't live in or near caves, then they are not going to leave bones in caves, now are they?

But bigfoot is supposed to be alive and dropping bodies NOW.

Quote

And if almost all ape and homo bones are known from caves, then why are we assuming that BF bones would be found in significant amounts outside caves?

Most ANCIENT homo and ape bones are found in caves, quarries, and burial sites. Here's some modern ape remains: wildlife managers examine the body of a monkey.

http://gorilladoctor...11-23-22-am.jpg

HEre's a bunch of dead apes:
http://www.google.co...19&tx=114&ty=60

http://www.google.co...29,r:0,s:0,i:85

http://www.google.co...40&tx=132&ty=54




Quote

Especially if its populationi has never been very big. Neanderthals lived across Europe and into Asia, yet their population never really took off, though they had almost 800,000 years to get established. Some estimates say that there never was more then 20,000 neanderthals alive at any one time,

Never more than 20,000? And yet we have evidence that they existed... caves or not, they lived 1/2 a million years ago. Yet we can't find anything from bigfoot? Who is still alive? Come on...

Quote

So, regardless of if I can explain away 90% of arguements,

You don't explain them, you make half-assed excuses that only open up more questions.

Let's start with one at random:

Quote

If I point out they must have a very low population density, you'll simply ask how they then communicate and breed

How does a giant ape population stay so small that they leave behind absolutely no evidence of their existence (no evidence of culture, tools, language, art, clothing jewelery, bones, corpses, kill sites, etc) and yet still have a viable population?

Edited by Neognosis, 11 October 2012 - 01:42 PM.


#120    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:01 PM

Wow! And people here tell me I'm argumentative.

:w00t:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users