Do bigfoots exist really?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So which of the many contradictory stories are you relying on now? Is it the creature that lives with the family and is peaceful? Is it the creature that is more the will-o-the-wisp? Is it the malevolent creature that brings destruction?

BF believers love to pretend that there is a consistency to the stories which does not exist.

 

And you love to make up derogatory crap about people because you love talking down on them.

Like I asked you before,, if you're 100% certain that BF does not exist, what is in here for you?

I think I nailed it. That's you.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

All of a sudden you need links???

2. I know exactly what you said. I'll ask you again, does a plaster of paris cast of a shoe box have FOOT prints OR fingerprints? Dermal ridges can be either.

3. There is s link out there that gives all american voice prints of what is to believed BFs. All of them. I ain't fetching it for you.

4. And I don't care how easily fooled YOU are about patty and the evidences that you seem to always slough off. There has to be an explanation in order for the MIAMS theory to hold.And you just don't seem like taking a crack at it.

As long as you keep ignoring hard evidences, I'm sure you don't think any exist.

Not all of a sudden. I  have been asking for you to support your stories and I am glad you did.

1. So you linked to a discussion and that discussion begins with someone pointing out that whether or not the data is true the conclusion is not supported by the data. Thanks for that link.

2. Your question is pointless. The fact of the matter is that the so-called dermal ridges were in fact dessication ridges. Her is your bizarre question; "does a plaster of paris cast of a shoe box have FOOT prints OR fingerprints?" Does a cast of a shoe box have foot prints? No because it is a cast of a box and not a foot. Does a cast of a box ave fingerprints? No, because a box doesn't have fingers. 

Here is my question. Were the ridges discussed by Meldrum from the print that was cast or were these ridges formed afterward by the dessication of the cast material?

3. So you admit that the claim you made about the tape recording was not truthful. Thank you. 

4. So the Patty film was a fake using a cheapo suit worn by a guy. Great. 

I'm not ignoring hard evidence. So far you have posted weak and poor things that have been beat to death and shown to be worthless.

 

[stereologist]

16 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

As said I think it is possible. I didn't say I could prove it.

Do I get a last wish before you execute me? Geezus.

So you compound the issue by layering on woo to cover up the fact that the evidence for BF doesn't exist.

[stereologist]

14 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

And you love to make up derogatory crap about people because you love talking down on them.

Like I asked you before,, if you're 100% certain that BF does not exist, what is in here for you?

I think I nailed it. That's you.

Your claim is something about the stories. So please tell us which of the contradictory stories you believe. Maybe I looked at too many stories and got too interested in learning about the stories.

So please tell us the stories of interest.

[stereologist]

Here is an interesting story about this foot guy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/us/search-for-bigfoot-outlives-the-man-who-created-him.html

Quote

Dr. Fahrenbach has tried to prove -- by DNA analysis of hair samples -- that Bigfoot is a species heretofore unknown to science. To date, he has come up empty, which he attributes to fragmented DNA.

But Dr. Fahrenbach has done an extensive analysis of 706 footprints, and has concluded that the average length of the animal's foot is 15.6 inches and that an adult Sasquatch can weigh up to 2,000 pounds.

Here is the telling part.

Quote

It may seem remarkable that Ray Wallace's staged footprints, which appear to have launched the term ''Bigfoot'' into popular idiom, were within an inch or so of the other prints, but Dr. Fahrenbach is unfazed.

This isn't about a population distribution. It is about people being copycats.

[+joc]

35 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Here is an interesting story about this foot guy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/us/search-for-bigfoot-outlives-the-man-who-created-him.html

Here is the telling part.

This isn't about a population distribution. It is about people being copycats.

Thanks for posting that!  I had never heard that before...it is hilarious...a prank...and now it's almost a religion in some places...

...which makes me think...

...Abraham, darling, little Issac is being a turd again, he refuses to go to bed.  

Don't worry honey, I will teach him a little lesson in disobedience....grabs, Issac, mule, and knife...

...Dad, what are you doing?  Why are you tying me up and...what is that knife for...

God told me to kill  you Issac.

  What the...chicken!  Who is God??

God is the creator of everything...he talked to me and told me to kill you...I must obey...he is our heavenly father.  

Please don't kill me Dad...

So, Honey...you should have seen Issac's eyes almost PoP out of his head when I pulled the knife out...he'll think twice about being disobedient next time....

6000 years later...

In the name of Jesus...throw those crutches away and walk!   Praise God...everyone give a big round of applause for Jesus!

Edited November 8, 2018 by joc

[stereologist]

So much for the lie that the curve is a perfect normal curve.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/sasq_traits.htm

Quote

A collection of 706 footprints yielded an average length of 15.6" and a range of 4" to 27" (Fig. 1). The statistical treatment implies that more than 99% of the foot prints of this population are going to fall between 6" and 25". The graphic representation of the distribution is a bell-shaped curve, slightly more peaked than a normal distribution. This shape argues compellingly that the data originated from a single species rather than a multitude of overlapping species of different characteristics. It also means  that they were not produced fictitiously over 40 years by hundreds of people independently of each other, a process that would have generated a distribution with many peaks.

It was not perfect or even close to perfect. It certainly suggests that copy cats were at work.

[Minimalists]

20 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

You and those like you really have no idea how amusing these kinds of insults are to me. 

I imagine they're also quite pleasing to read by those that have pulled the wool completely over your eyes.

 

What Earthly security risks do men in monkey suits pose? It would be different if there was some kind of big government secret behind all this Bigfoot stuff but there's not any. UFOs pose a bigger threat if they are real and come from other planets but even that has not been proven as fact. Nutters need to take off the tinfoil hats or stay in the shade so the Sun cannot bake your brains.

All this Bigfoot rhetoric would not be so laughable if there some at least some method to the madness but there's not...

[+joc]

52 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So much for the lie that the curve is a perfect normal curve.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/sasq_traits.htm

It was not perfect or even close to perfect. It certainly suggests that copy cats were at work.

...not only that..

From the same link:

The slight asymmetry of the curve to the left might be attributable to the contribution of juveniles smaller than the population mean and their attrition before adulthood.

If there were footprints...over 700...some juveniles...some adults...

...where is the skeletal evidence?   

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Your claim is something about the stories. So please tell us which of the contradictory stories you believe. Maybe I looked at too many stories and got too interested in learning about the stories.

So please tell us the stories of interest.

I can guarantee you that your BS stories are not of interest to me.

You twist some facts, ignore others. You're a master

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

12 minutes ago, joc said:

...not only that..

From the same link:

The slight asymmetry of the curve to the left might be attributable to the contribution of juveniles smaller than the population mean and their attrition before adulthood.

If there were footprints...over 700...some juveniles...some adults...

...where is the skeletal evidence?   

 

Can you find any skeletal evidence of the red wolf?

Just asking.

[Minimalists]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Can you find any skeletal evidence of the red wolf?

Just asking.

And because there is no skeletal evidence of a red wolf this proves Bigfoot how exactly? How does not being able to find evidence of one creature create proof of another?  I fail to see the logic or I am missing something...? Bigfoot believers always throw this up and I have never understood the logic behind it..So Bigfoot exists because there is no skeletal remains of this creature or that creature....?

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I can guarantee you that your BS stories are not of interest to me.

You twist some facts, ignore others. You're a master

So you can't tell us which stories you favor. I suppose that means you probably were unaware that the stories do contradict each other as I pointed out.

You try to cover up your failure, yours and yours alone, by making up stories about me.  That's pathetic.

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Can you find any skeletal evidence of the red wolf?

Just asking.

I've seen live red wolves. None had died in the area in which I saw them making skeleton finding impossible.

The issue is not whether any particular individual finds a skeleton. It is whether anyone finds one. People do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf

[Swede]

26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Can you find any skeletal evidence of the red wolf?

Just asking.

Yes:

https://indyweek.com/news/endangered-red-wolf-shot-dead-eastern-north-carolina/

Notes:

• Observe population density.
• Reference present range.
• Manner of death irrelevant.

.

[Trelane]

22 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

There is a government coverup of these creatures. Dig deep enough and you will soon learn this for yourself. 

 

 

Where do you propose I dig? Why would "the government" cover this up?

[Resume]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 And as the head of the expedition said, "that means it is not human". Hope that works for you. For now. I'll see if I can google it,

No, that doesn't work for me.  You would think I would've read about novel primate DNA in Nature, but I haven't.  If you're talking about the Sykes study; his tests came back as bear DNA.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

28 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

And because there is no skeletal evidence of a red wolf this proves Bigfoot how exactly? How does not being able to find evidence of one creature create proof of another?  I fail to see the logic or I am missing something...? Bigfoot believers always throw this up and I have never understood the logic behind it..So Bigfoot exists because there is no skeletal remains of this creature or that creature....?

No, see you're twisting it. The prior poster asked for skeletal evidence, *implying* that lack of same = no bigfoot. To show the wrongness in his logic, I'm saying that no skeletal remains of red wolf means no red wolf, which is not true. Now, my illustration does not prove bigfoot exists, it only shows that a lack of skeletal remains is not proof of non existence. I would have thought that was easy to see what I was inferring.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

31 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you can't tell us which stories you favor. I suppose that means you probably were unaware that the stories do contradict each other as I pointed out.

You try to cover up your failure, yours and yours alone, by making up stories about me.  That's pathetic.

I told you what evidences I believe. You then when to town trying to show me why evidences really are not that. So?

[Carnoferox]

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No, see you're twisting it. The prior poster asked for skeletal evidence, *implying* that lack of same = no bigfoot. To show the wrongness in his logic, I'm saying that no skeletal remains of red wolf means no red wolf, which is not true. Now, my illustration does not prove bigfoot exists, it only shows that a lack of skeletal remains is not proof of non existence. I would have thought that was easy to see what I was inferring.

But there have been skeletal remains of red wolves found, so your comparison still makes no sense.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Carnoferox

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

But there have been skeletal remains of red wolves found, so your comparison still makes no sense.

Ya, someone shot one. Not what I mean. I mean in the wild.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I told you what evidences I believe. You then when to town trying to show me why evidences really are not that. So?

I asking you to stop the wishy washy baloney and point out which stories you like. I pointed out that the stories cover a wide range of situations and you still won't point to which type of story you think is BF.

My guess at this time is that you were not aware of the great differneces

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ya, someone shot one. Not what I mean. I mean in the wild.

Usually the BF believer claims no one finds bear skeletons in the woods. Regardless of the species you still are wrong. Unlike the fantasy of BF these other animals are well documented.

 

[freetoroam]

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, my illustration does not prove bigfoot exists, it only shows that a lack of skeletal remains is not proof of non existence. I would have thought that was easy to see what I was inferring.

If there are no skeletal remains then how can it be used as not proof of non existence? No skeletal remains is a sure sign of proof of non existence, unless you got some poo,  hair or a tooth up your sleeves?  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I asking you to stop the wishy washy baloney and point out which stories you like. I pointed out that the stories cover a wide range of situations and you still won't point to which type of story you think is BF.

My guess at this time is that you were not aware of the great differneces

Well, you can guess all you want. You asked me to list my evidences of BF existence and I did. What else do you want, chimes?