Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #51 Share Posted July 9, 2016 10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: Exactly what kind of "evidence" would prove it's nonexistence? I never asked anyone to "provide evidence proving the non-existence of sasquatch", I only suggested that not all of the evidence suggesting it exists has been effectively debunked. Merc disagreed, so I asked him to provide the evidence showing how it has all been debunked. He can't, of course, but can only repeat his unsubstantiated opinion - which is the same for anyone else who claims certainty about the existence of sasquatch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #52 Share Posted July 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: While your riposte is somewhat underwhelming. Bipedalism and relative hairlessness go hand in hand. A hairy biped makes no evolutionary sense. We became persistence hunters on the plains of Africa. Hairlessness facilitates evaporative cooling which is why humans, unlike other primates, sweat so profusely. We were able to withstand the heat of day that kept prey animals immobile and/or in shade. We ran them down, persistently, until the sun took it's inevitable toll on their heat-exhausted bodies, then moved in for the kill. This is why we walk on two legs instead of four. why semi bipedalism became full bipedalism. We were learning to shape tools and had to carry the fruits of our kills back to the group. Birds are bipedal and they are not, technically, "hairless" as feathers evolved from hair. Okay, the primary form of locomotion of most birds is flight via their wings, but not all birds fly, yet all birds retain a feathery body. That our ancestral lineage swapped hairy bodies for the ability to sweat does not make an argument for the hairlessness of all hominoid bipeds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 9, 2016 #53 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Leonardo said: Birds are bipedal and they are not, technically, "hairless" as feathers evolved from hair. Okay, the primary form of locomotion of most birds is flight via their wings, but not all birds fly, yet all birds retain a feathery body. That our ancestral lineage swapped hairy bodies for the ability to sweat does not make an argument for the hairlessness of all hominoid bipeds. Since man is the only bipedal primate that does it makes quite an effective argument. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, other than unsubstantiated anecdotal nonsense, please do. http://mikolka-inquiries.blogspot.com/2011/10/persistence-running-and-hypothesis.html Edited July 9, 2016 by Hammerclaw clarity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #54 Share Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said: Since man is the only bipedal primate that does it makes quite an effective argument. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, other than unsubstantiated anecdotal nonsense, please do. http://mikolka-inquiries.blogspot.com/2011/10/persistence-running-and-hypothesis.html I would correct that to "Homo sapiens is the only known surviving bipedal primate". So, the argument is not quite as effective as you would assume. Not all bipedal primates evolved in the circumstances under which H. sapiens did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted July 9, 2016 #55 Share Posted July 9, 2016 In the past 50 years or whatever, why is this film the STRONGEST evidence of a bigfoot? As cameras have improved, as the population has increased, and as the territory that a giant, mythical man-ape inhabits shrinks, why has there been no other films or videos this provocative? Everything from that point to this point has been awful in comparison (and that's saying quite a bit, since the Gimlin film is as laughable as they come). What makes this single piece of footage the holy grail, in spite of the contrary evidence and the actions and words that damned it by the very creators from the beginning? It's a suit. That much has been obvious since the beginning. Just accept it and move on...or, if the obsession persists, find your own bigfoot and get a better video. Or, failing, that, find a better bigfoot suit and do a remake. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jethrofloyd Posted July 9, 2016 #56 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Let me ask what are your thoughts on Freeman Footage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted July 9, 2016 #57 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) As much as they are about Patterson-Gimlin. Edited July 9, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 9, 2016 #58 Share Posted July 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Leonardo said: I would correct that to "Homo sapiens is the only known surviving bipedal primate". So, the argument is not quite as effective as you would assume. Not all bipedal primates evolved in the circumstances under which H. sapiens did. It's the only effective argument since yours consists of nothing more than unreferenced idle speculation. Your in the same situation a theist finds himself in when he argues for the existence of God with nothing to back it up but belief. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #59 Share Posted July 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: It's the only effective argument since yours consists of nothing more than unreferenced idle speculation. Your in the same situation a theist finds himself in when he argues for the existence of God with nothing to back it up but belief. Meet the (bipedal) hominid family. It is only since H. erectus that hominids have been "hairless". So much for "unreferenced". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurzweil Posted July 9, 2016 #60 Share Posted July 9, 2016 43 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said: Let me ask what are your thoughts on Freeman Footage? Was that filmed with an etch a sketch? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 9, 2016 #61 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Leonardo said: Meet the (bipedal) hominid family. It is only since H. erectus that hominids have been "hairless". So much for "unreferenced". I didn't know they'd recovered specimens with skin and hair intact. Got a reference for that, too.? Oh, and your giant fictitious hominid seems to be missing from the picture. Edited July 9, 2016 by Hammerclaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 9, 2016 #62 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Leonardo said: I never asked anyone to "provide evidence proving the non-existence of sasquatch", I only suggested that not all of the evidence suggesting it exists has been effectively debunked. Merc disagreed, so I asked him to provide the evidence showing how it has all been debunked. He can't, of course, but can only repeat his unsubstantiated opinion - which is the same for anyone else who claims certainty about the existence of sasquatch. I won't get sidetracked by your lies and tortured logic. You lost the argument, can't stand it and so you twist and turn and lie and pretend you didn't say things you absolutely did. Let's simplify things, I asked you several times to put forth the best evidence you have and you refuse to do so. Why? Post it here and let us all take a look at the evidence that hasn't been proven a fraud or been totally debunked. This is the fourth or fifth time I have asked for said evidence so we are all waiting with baited breath. Edited July 9, 2016 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 9, 2016 #63 Share Posted July 9, 2016 3 hours ago, Merc14 said: I won't get sidetracked by your lies and tortured logic. You lost the argument, can't stand it and so you twist and turn and lie and pretend you didn't say things you absolutely did. Let's simplify things, I asked you several times to put forth the best evidence you have and you refuse to do so. Why? Post it here and let us all take a look at the evidence that hasn't been proven a fraud or been totally debunked. This is the fourth or fifth time I have asked for said evidence so we are all waiting with baited breath. *sigh* Why is it "believers" are always so angry, and have to insult people to "prove" their argument is "right"? I am not trying to "prove" sasquatch exists, so your call for me to provide such evidence is meaningless. All I have said, is that some of the evidence for the existence of sasquatch is inconclusive - meaning it has neither been proven true or false. The P-G film is one of those "inconclusive" pieces of evidence, regardless how much you choose to believe otherwise. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 9, 2016 #64 Share Posted July 9, 2016 14 minutes ago, Leonardo said: *sigh* Why is it "believers" are always so angry, and have to insult people to "prove" their argument is "right"? I am not trying to "prove" sasquatch exists, so your call for me to provide such evidence is meaningless. All I have said, is that some of the evidence for the existence of sasquatch is inconclusive - meaning it has neither been proven true or false. The P-G film is one of those "inconclusive" pieces of evidence, regardless how much you choose to believe otherwise. Believer? Believer in what? Please present the evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingitsune Posted July 10, 2016 #65 Share Posted July 10, 2016 We have no idea how hairy these other homos were, these are pure artistic licence. We haven't figured out which gene control this trait. For all we know, Neandertal could have been very hairy, the same to us than a mammoth is to an African elephant. At least the environment make it possible that Neandertal develop fur to withstand Ice Age cold. And maybe Denisovan too, as it was found quite up North compared to Eretus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 10, 2016 #66 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I rather doubt they were any hairier than the Inuit; we were out of Africa and already living beyond environmental constraints. Also, much maligned Neanderthal turns out to be our kith and kin. We lost our fur for a reason, became fully bipedal for a reason, the same reason. To move in the heat of the day with speed and endurance. Bigfoot as reported is atypical, unlike any other primate. It is solitary, rarely if ever seen in family groups, almost never reported to carry or use tools. It's self defense against larger predators or large packs of smaller predators must be clean living righteous thoughts as it has little in the way of natural armament. A pack grey wolves would make short work of a lumbering brute like the one in the PG film and it would have no chance against the superior armament of Brown Bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrisonerX Posted July 10, 2016 #67 Share Posted July 10, 2016 14 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: I rather doubt they were any hairier than the Inuit; we were out of Africa and already living beyond environmental constraints. Also, much maligned Neanderthal turns out to be our kith and kin. We lost our fur for a reason, became fully bipedal for a reason, the same reason. To move in the heat of the day with speed and endurance. Bigfoot as reported is atypical, unlike any other primate. It is solitary, rarely if ever seen in family groups, almost never reported to carry or use tools. It's self defense against larger predators or large packs of smaller predators must be clean living righteous thoughts as it has little in the way of natural armament. A pack grey wolves would make short work of a lumbering brute like the one in the PG film and it would have no chance against the superior armament of Brown Bears. Lol a pack of grey wolves would get wrecked. As for brown bears - mutual avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted July 10, 2016 #68 Share Posted July 10, 2016 On 7/8/2016 at 7:14 PM, OverSword said: This film and footage of astronauts on the lunar surface can be used in the same way when faced with people that call hoax. Why, with all the advancements in movie and special effects technology, have no film maker been able to accurately reproduce the look of men walking on the moon? Simple, because the footage from the moon is real and difficult if not impossible to accurately reproduce (fake). So ask yourself, with all the advancements in movie and special effects technology, have no film maker been able to accurately reproduce the look of the creature in this film? Simple, because this film is actual footage of a real life Sasquatch and difficult if not impossible to accurately reproduce (fake) . Decades later they spent a ton of money making a much less convincing creature for Harry and the Hendersons, the most realistic Big Foot costume to date. Everyone is going to believe what they want but if you think this is a man in a costume then you are just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong IMO. I saw a show years ago where they used computers and different types of people including athletes and actors to try and replicate the movements of the "creature" in the film. They even did something that took out the shakiness of the handheld camera and not one person could move the way the creature did in the P/G piece. The computer enabled them to pinpoint the physical reasons and differences between the way humans and the "creature" moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 10, 2016 #69 Share Posted July 10, 2016 That study wasn't exactly peer reviewed science and was pretty much inconclusive. One camp saw a big difference and the other no difference compared to human movement. To my eyes it looks like a man in an ape suit, shuffling along. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted July 10, 2016 #70 Share Posted July 10, 2016 "To my eyes it looks like a man in an ape suit, shuffling along" Which is why they did the comparison. And even tho it looks completely possible for a person to replicate it could not be done. The computer analyzed the physical movements from the film and came up with specific reasons why a human couldn't recreate them....I just can't remember exactly what they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted July 11, 2016 #71 Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) I think you may find that was TV. What you can present there is a world away from critically evaluated, non biased analysis. It's just entertainment. It isn't meant to be taken seriously. Edited July 11, 2016 by oldrover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 11, 2016 #72 Share Posted July 11, 2016 I watched the PG film again and honestly don't know why anyone thinks it is of such high quality or that the costume is so special. The buttocks doesn't even move on the baggy thing and the film is so shaky and grainy that details aren't seen.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 11, 2016 #73 Share Posted July 11, 2016 5 hours ago, skliss said: "To my eyes it looks like a man in an ape suit, shuffling along" Which is why they did the comparison. And even tho it looks completely possible for a person to replicate it could not be done. The computer analyzed the physical movements from the film and came up with specific reasons why a human couldn't recreate them....I just can't remember exactly what they were. Hogwash. If they had picked a hundred candidates they'd have found one that fit the profile. The test was rigged to fail. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 11, 2016 #74 Share Posted July 11, 2016 9 hours ago, PrisonerX said: Lol a pack of grey wolves would get wrecked. As for brown bears - mutual avoidance. What would it do; bleed on them? Puny fangs, no claws no weapons, all by itself, it's so timid it avoids scrutiny. Use it's strength? So what? Cows are strong, too, and even one of them could put Bigfoot down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted July 11, 2016 #75 Share Posted July 11, 2016 19 hours ago, PrisonerX said: Lol a pack of grey wolves would get wrecked. As for brown bears - mutual avoidance. And your proof of that is? Just because you think it's cool? A pack of wolves can take down a bison, if desperate. They're not going to have any problem with a creature that's quite smaller, much lighter, and no real defenses except not being able to be filmed clearly and consistently. Also, since bigfoot leave no remains when they die, they're obviously not made of bones, so they're soft and squishy...perfect fodder for a pack of wolves. Hell, even one wolf. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts