Do bigfoots exist really?

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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?

So you failed. Your big item was the film with cheapo suit with the guy shuffling along.

The audio recording which you so strongly claimed was indicative of an unknown animal seems to have been a fabrication on your part.

The foot distribution seems to be of little use, more indicative of copycats like the original carved feet.

There was the opossum DNA. Not even a placental mammal.

Once again no evidence.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

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.

 

No, you're wrong. Just because you don't have skeletal remains of a creature does not mean one does not exist. There are an estimated 8.7 million species. Guess how many have been identified...?

Less than 20%.

Like I said, you're wrong.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No, you're wrong. Just because you don't have skeletal remains of a creature does not mean one does not exist. Here are an estimated 8.7 million species. Guess how many have been identified...?

Less than 20%.

Like I said, you're wrong.

No you are wrong. No bones, no teeth, no hair, no blood, no scat, nothing.

The fact that there are insects mainly that have not been identified means nothing when it comes to a creature that is supposed to be 8 feet tall.

As all of the posters know you are utterly completely wrong.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you failed. Your big item was the film with cheapo suit with the guy shuffling along.

The audio recording which you so strongly claimed was indicative of an unknown animal seems to have been a fabrication on your part.

The foot distribution seems to be of little use, more indicative of copycats like the original carved feet.

There was the opossum DNA. Not even a placental mammal.

Once again no evidence.

Once again, there is much evidence. You just refuse to admit that real evidence is just that.

Let me ask you something. You claim that ALL witnesses of BF and all people who have found prints and cast them are fakers.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Have you talked to them all?

Or do you simply say, "Since I *know* BF does not exist.... blahblahblah", which is using that which you are trying to prove as a postulate. Well of course you can prove your point that way. If you allow me to assume 1=0, then I can PROVE to you mathematically that 1=0. Whoopie do.

You really think that random fakers will make a fake BF footprint without having 5 toes...?  Really? or are you just saying that as a matter of convenience.?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

No you are wrong. No bones, no teeth, no hair, no blood, no scat, nothing.

The fact that there are insects mainly that have not been identified means nothing when it comes to a creature that is supposed to be 8 feet tall.

As all of the posters know you are utterly completely wrong.

 

So in other words, the over 80% of species that are not known are only not known because they don't exist, right?

Hey, you have - and I quote, "No bones, no teeth, no hair, no blood, no scat, nothing." to these millions of unknown species ( over 80% of 8.7 million)

So they don't exist!! by your logic.

All the posters are like you, WRONG.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Once again, there is much evidence. You just refuse to admit that real evidence is just that.

Let me ask you something. You claim that ALL witnesses of BF and all people who have found prints and cast them are fakers.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Have you talked to them all?

Or do you simply say, "Since I *know* BF does not exist.... blahblahblah", which is using that which you are trying to prove as a postulate. Well of course you can prove your point that way. If you allow me to assume 1=0, then I can PROVE to you mathematically that 1=0. Whoopie do.

You really think that random fakers will make a fake BF footprint without having 5 toes...?  Really? or are you just saying that as a matter of convenience.?

No there isn't much evidence. There are anecdotes.

So here we see a typical illogical construct. Where did you get this wacko idea? "You claim that ALL witnesses of BF and all people who have found prints and cast them are fakers."

I know where you go it. You just made it up. You made it up because that is what most of your posts have been - made up stuff.

Your childish ranting after that wacko statement is well, childish.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

What do you have to prove the existence of 10 foot tall Gigantopithecus ?

One partial jaw bone and few loose teeth. That's IT.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

So in other words, the over 80% of species that are not known are only not known because they don't exist, right?

Hey, you have - and I quote, "No bones, no teeth, no hair, no blood, no scat, nothing." to these millions of unknown species ( over 80% of 8.7 million)

So they don't exist!! by your logic.

All the posters are like you, WRONG.

Wow. No surprise that you come up with more illogical wacko comments such as this: "So in other words, the over 80% of species that are not known are only not known because they don't exist, right?"

Are you really that poor at thinking?

 

Then comes another comment so ignorant it requires a chuckle "Hey, you have - and I quote, "No bones, no teeth, no hair, no blood, no scat, nothing." to these millions of unknown species ( over 80% of 8.7 million)"

Frankly, most of those inferred species are insects and would not have teeth or bones.

Not by my logic. The ridiculous blatherings you are posting are yours and yours alone.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

No there isn't much evidence. There are anecdotes.

So here we see a typical illogical construct. Where did you get this wacko idea? "You claim that ALL witnesses of BF and all people who have found prints and cast them are fakers."

I know where you go it. You just made it up. You made it up because that is what most of your posts have been - made up stuff.

Your childish ranting after that wacko statement is well, childish.

Nice evasion of the topic.

Once again, How do you know that all eye witnesses to seeing BF and people who have cast BF prints are fakers?

What evidence do you have???

You have ZERO evidence. Your saying it while jumping up and down waving your arms does NOT constitute proof.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What do you have to prove the existence of 10 foot tall Gigantopithecus ?

One partial jaw bone and few loose teeth. That's IT.

Aren't you the one that tried to tie Gigantopithecus to BF?

I didn't comment on that creature from southern Asia.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Wow. No surprise that you come up with more illogical wacko comments such as this: "So in other words, the over 80% of species that are not known are only not known because they don't exist, right?"

Are you really that poor at thinking?

 

Then comes another comment so ignorant it requires a chuckle "Hey, you have - and I quote, "No bones, no teeth, no hair, no blood, no scat, nothing." to these millions of unknown species ( over 80% of 8.7 million)"

Frankly, most of those inferred species are insects and would not have teeth or bones.

Not by my logic. The ridiculous blatherings you are posting are yours and yours alone.

 

Most are insects LOL!

Why don't you try proving that?

[stereologist]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Nice evasion of the topic.

Once again, How do you know that all eye witnesses to seeing BF and people who have cast BF prints are fakers?

What evidence do you have???

You have ZERO evidence. Your saying it while jumping up and down waving your arms does NOT constitute proof.

What evasion? I'm simply not going to do anything but point out your delusional ramblings that make no sense.

[stereologist]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Most are insects LOL!

Why don't you try proving that?

Why dn't you look up the numbers you are quoting from? Don't you have any idea what you are posting?

[stereologist]

Tell you what Earl.Of.Trumps I'm done laughing at your wacko, incoherent, ramblings for today. Please delight up all tomorrow with more jokes.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Aren't you the one that tried to tie Gigantopithecus to BF?

I didn't comment on that creature from southern Asia.

I did not make that tie.

You know what I'm trying to say. There are but the ONE bone and some teeth. No backbone, no skull, no scat, no nothing else.

a 10 foot tall creature?? that's it???

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

What evasion? I'm simply not going to do anything but point out your delusional ramblings that make no sense.

Yet you still did not answer a question that a 10 year old could understand.

That's why I had to answer it for you. you have NO evidence they are all liars. Maybe some but not all.

[Carnoferox]

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What do you have to prove the existence of 10 foot tall Gigantopithecus ?

One partial jaw bone and few loose teeth. That's IT.

Try four mandibles and 1000+ teeth. The remains of Gigantopithecus were subject to a unique taphonomic bias, collection in caves and extensive gnawing by porcupines, that eliminated postcranial bones.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Carnoferox

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Why dn't you look up the numbers you are quoting from? Don't you have any idea what you are posting?

Another evasion!! Still don't know what I am talking about - with a refusal to answer the question.

https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html

 

 

Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million

Most precise estimate yet suggests more than 80% of species still undiscovered.

 

"There are 8.7 million eukaryotic species on our planet — give or take 1.3 million. The latest biodiversity estimate, based on a new method of prediction, dramatically narrows the range of 'best guesses', which was previously between 3 million and 100 million. It means that a staggering 86% of land species and 91% of marine species remain undiscovered. "

 

IS this what you do to try evade questions and shake me...? Make bogus accusations and force me to get links?

One last time so people in here can watch you evade the issue for the third time:

WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT ALL BF EYEWITNESSES AND PEOPLE THAT CAST PRINTS ARE FAKERS?

You're embarrassed to tell the truth aren't you?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Try four mandibles and 1000+ teeth. The remains of Gigantopithecus were subject to a unique taphonomic bias, collection in caves and extensive gnawing by porcupines, that eliminated postcranial bones.

 

That's new since the last time I looked it up. A few years ago

[Carnoferox]

5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That's new since the last time I looked it up. A few years ago

No it's not new at all. While the fourth mandible was only published in 2016, the first three were published back in the 1950's. Discoveries of teeth have been published since the 1930's.

[Sakari]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Can you find any skeletal evidence of the red wolf?

Just asking.

How about a live one? Our Sakari's Mother was a red Wolf, her father a Timber Wolf.

If a live one is not as good as bones from one, I can find you bones also.

[Sakari]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

It was wild. And I see wild ones here.

[Swede]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

Flawed logic:

• The specimen was dispatched in the wild.
• The specimen was recovered in the wild by individuals unaware of the initial dispatch. Additional specimens have been documented.
• All primate species are relegated to a limited lifespan. The specific causation of demise is not relevant.
• Repeat: Note total population and relevant distribution.
• Compare the above points to the claims of, at a minimum, a continental distribution. Consider requisite breeding population requirements, procurement strategies, etc.

To then resort to "inter-dimensional" qualities is a frail and last resort in support of one's position, particularly given the currently understood nature of the physics involved.

.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

15 minutes ago, Sakari said:

It was wild. And I see wild ones here.

How ya doing sakari?

What I'm driving at you'd have to know by reading thru the comments made to that point.

I am talking about going into the woods and finding skeletal remains of a red wolf.

Very hard to do. Not impossible, but hard to do.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, Swede said:

Flawed logic:

• The specimen was dispatched in the wild.
• The specimen was recovered in the wild by individuals unaware of the initial dispatch. Additional specimens have been documented.
• All primate species are relegated to a limited lifespan. The specific causation of demise is not relevant.
• Repeat: Note total population and relevant distribution.
• Compare the above points to the claims of, at a minimum, a continental distribution. Consider requisite breeding population requirements, procurement strategies, etc.

To then resort to "inter-dimensional" qualities is a frail and last resort in support of one's position, particularly given the currently understood nature of the physics involved.

.

If you choose not to believe that the 11 dimensions that physicists believe exist, then fine. But if you do believe they exist then what would stop *some* creatures of being able to transit them at will?

I am not saying I know this to be true for BF, I  thru it out there as a possibility. The BF has something going for it.