Do bigfoots exist really?

[PrisonerX]

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

Only stop the "mainstream scientific community"? LOL. That's the funniest thing posted so far in this thread.

When all else fails make up a dubious cover up story.

If this tale of BF was real then all anyone has to do is go out there and collect DNA and take it someplace for testing.

So far all of this big foot searching has done nothing more than put a suit in a deep freeze, create laughable TV shows, and shift money from the gullible to the hoaxers.

Yes, of course...

Such naivety.

Edited November 9, 2018 by PrisonerX

[Minimalists]

1 hour 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.

Thats something...Where's Bigfoot's partial jaw bone or loose teeth? At least Gigantopithecus has a fossil record...We cannot say that about Bigfoot can we? 

[PrisonerX]

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

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

A decent place to begin is to check out cases of missing persons in the wilderness wherein military units are involved but operate in isolation. Missing 411 is a documentary in which some of these cases pop up. There's a bread crumb for you, best of luck.  

I'd also suggest personally interviewing and getting to know some eyewitnesses. 

Edited November 9, 2018 by PrisonerX

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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.

That's just asinine. You drew an inane conclusion far removed from logical thinking.

This post is even more pathetic than the previous statements: Please don't pretend that your inability to construct logical thoughts is a problem I or others have,

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

** snip **

 

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?

Again you seem unable to construct a logical thought. The " latest biodiversity estimate" is unrelated to the question of whether or not an 8 foot tall unknown hominid exists in North America.

Why do post lies. Her is the asinine childish lie you posted: "WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT ALL BF EYEWITNESSES AND PEOPLE THAT CAST PRINTS ARE FAKERS?"

That is a bad faced lie. Why are you so upset that you have to resort to being a liar?

Edited November 9, 2018 by stereologist

[stereologist]

32 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Yes, of course...

** snipped vacuous content **

Such naivety.

Another mindless post.

[stereologist]

So far nothing of value supporting bigfoot has been posted.

Recently I learned that in addition to the dessication marks that have been misidentified as dermal ridges, another person has made castings that produce such marks due to the casting process itself.

A Matt Crowley produced a number of castings that all looked identical to the features that ave been called dermal ridges. In support of these being casting artifacts it has been learned that the Onion Mountain casts did not show dermal ridges, but these were seen in the cast suggesting clearly that the casting process did not reproduce the print that was cast.

[stereologist]

Oh Carnoferox you are going to love this, but I bet you've seen this already.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4441

Quote

Primatologist and Bigfoot researcher Dr. Esteban Sarmiento also endorsed the casting saying:

"In my opinion, the Skookum body cast is that of an upright descendant of Gigantopithecus."

 

[stereologist]

There are more goodies in that article. Here is  one

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4441

Quote

But then skeptical investigator Matt Crowley discovered that these alleged dermatoglyphs could be re-created through the drying process of the casting agent - that they were in effect artifacts from the casting process itself, not dermatoglyphs.

 

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, PrisonerX said:

A decent place to begin is to check out cases of missing persons in the wilderness wherein military units are involved but operate in isolation. Missing 411 is a documentary in which some of these cases pop up. There's a bread crumb for you, best of luck.  

I'd also suggest personally interviewing and getting to know some eyewitnesses. 

I'm in the military. Never encountered a bigfoot or seen any evidence of one. The Missing 411 accounts have had some literary freedom taken with them in regards to military involvement. I've actually actively sought the animal on my own for many years. Alas, no creature. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but why would the government want to cove r up the existence of such a creature.

[Carnoferox]

40 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Oh Carnoferox you are going to love this, but I bet you've seen this already.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4441

 

Thanks, I actually hadn't seen this before. The disconnect between the scientific evidence of Gigantopithecus and the Bigfooter's fantasy Gigantopithecus continues to frustrate me.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Thanks, I actually hadn't seen this before. The disconnect between the scientific evidence of Gigantopithecus and the Bigfooter's fantasy Gigantopithecus continues to frustrate me.

Had I not read your presentation of the Gigantopithecus material I would not  have been as surprised as I was. It amazes me.

I appreciate your posts because a good part of your posts places an historical context to finds showing the progression of research which often is important important to understanding the changes in understanding we have of the world we live in.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

That's just asinine. You drew an inane conclusion far removed from logical thinking.

This post is even more pathetic than the previous statements: Please don't pretend that your inability to construct logical thoughts is a problem I or others have,

When are you going to cut the insults and get to the meat of the matter?

Do I have to ask you one more time...?

What evidence do you have that all BF eyewitnesses and makers of BF footprint castings are liars?

You think you can evade this by insulting and hope I go off track. Nope.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Most are insects LOL!

Why don't you try proving that?

What percentage do you think comprise of large animals? Bigger than a spider. 

Do you know how these estimates are made? Ecosystems. Niches need to be filled. 

What aspects of the ecosystem suggest a large primate remains undiscovered? 

[stereologist]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

When are you going to cut the insults and get to the meat of the matter?

Do I have to ask you one more time...?

What evidence do you have that all BF eyewitnesses and makers of BF footprint castings are liars?

You think you can evade this by insulting and hope I go off track. Nope.

Soon as you stop being a liar about my post.

Are you going to apologize for your outrageous lies? The lie is repeated here.

Do you like being a liar? Does being a liar make you feel good?

The rest of us see you for the pathetic liar you are.

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by stereologist

[stereologist]

This thread is plagued with lunatic ramblings that are unrelated to anything stated in the thread.

These sorts of ramblings are commonly spouted by those that do not understand the material at hand.

Take the notion that " A curiosity: If all BF footprint castings are made by fakers, why don't they have 5 toes? "

I checked quite a few BF prints and all of them have 5 toes. In fact, I have not seen any photos of casts purported to be BF that did not have 5 toes.

Just like all of the other mutterings about BF I do not expect any evidence to support this weird suggestion.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What percentage do you think comprise of large animals? Bigger than a spider. 

Do you know how these estimates are made? Ecosystems. Niches need to be filled. 

What aspects of the ecosystem suggest a large primate remains undiscovered? 

 

The article I cited doesn't say.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

14 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Soon as you stop being a liar about my post.

Are you going to apologize for your outrageous lies? The lie is repeated here.

Do you like being a liar? Does being a liar make you feel good?

The rest of us see you for the pathetic liar you are.

 

You realize that if BF does not exist you are *forced* into saying any person that has a cast of a BF footprint is a faker, right?

So where's the lie? I asked a question that you keep calling a lie.I don't know why.

It's not a lie, it's a serious question. Funny, you keep calling me a liar in here like you did in the Roswell thread. How'd that work out for ya?

If all BF prints are fake but one, guess what....? BF lives. See what I'm getting at? So try to pay attention to the question because unless you answer it and tell me where you stand with it, I can't go any further. And you do want us to go further, right...?

[stereologist]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You realize that if BF does not exist you are *forced* into saying any person that has a cast of a BF footprint is a faker, right?

So where's the lie? I asked a question that you keep calling a lie.I don't know why.

It's not a lie, it's a serious question. Funny, you keep calling me a liar in here like you did in the Roswell thread. How'd that work out for ya?

If all BF prints are fake but one, guess what....? BF lives. See what I'm getting at? So try to pay attention to the question because unless you answer it and tell me where you stand with it, I can't go any further. And you do want us to go further, right...?

I see where you get your insanity. It is an inability to think above a child's level.

If BF does not exist? I don't believe BF exist. That does not force anything such as you suggest. This is the sort of close minded thinking that probably is the source of most of your blatant failures.

Let's explore a few of the myriad possibilities:

1. A person that has a cast bought it.

2. A person that has a cast knows it isn't  real and does not say it is real

3. A person with a cast misidentified what they cast

4. A person with a cast was fooled by a promoter of BF cashing in on the gullible

The laughable claim of forcing just illustrates the ridiculous nature of the statement.

Are there fakers out there? Of course. One of the most celebrated tracks was a hoax that lasted for decades, the Wallace tracks. After the fact many BF believers would like to pretend that they knew the tracks were fakes from the start. So how did the hoax lead to the name of this fictional creature?

One of the things people want to pretend is that if they collect enough junk that a pile of junk cannot be just junk. Well it can be just junk and that is what the BF lot has. They have an increasing pile of junk they believes conceals a gem or two. It doesn't. The same ridiculous notion happened with 2012 and crop circles and chemtrails and other wacko ideas.

You know what the lie is. You are a liar and you know why you are a pathetic liar. You can stop being a liar but that is your choice.

[stereologist]

Read an article recently in which BF believers make up excuses as to why BF track casts do not look like real tracks. The Patterson track casts do not look like real casts.

Excuses, I mean reasons, are presented as to why fake looking tracks are common especially from years ago.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

28 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This thread is plagued with lunatic ramblings that are unrelated to anything stated in the thread.

These sorts of ramblings are commonly spouted by those that do not understand the material at hand.

Take the notion that " A curiosity: If all BF footprint castings are made by fakers, why don't they have 5 toes? "

I checked quite a few BF prints and all of them have 5 toes. In fact, I have not seen any photos of casts purported to be BF that did not have 5 toes.

Just like all of the other mutterings about BF I do not expect any evidence to support this weird suggestion.

Holy Capoly, don't tell me you're *right* about something....

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/11/the-mystery-of-bigfoots-big-feet/

The late John Green, one of the key figures in the quest to solve the Bigfoot riddle, had his own thoughts on this particular issue. Admittedly, Green’s words don’t make the toe issue any clearer, but they are at least worth noting: “Most show five toes, but about 20 percent of reports describe either four toes or three toes. Probably the proportion with less than five toes is not actually that great. The number of toes often is not mentioned in a footprint report, and it seems likely that when prints show three or four toes that would usually be remarked on, while five toes would be taken for granted.”

Green offered the following, too: “If there were just five-toed tracks and three-toed tracks and each type was of consistent shape, I would accept that as a clear indication of two different species. Since there are four-toed tracks as well, and the three-toed kind are very inconsistent in shape, I don’t think such a conclusion would help much.”

------

I take it back... you're *partly* right.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I see where you get your insanity. It is an inability to think above a child's level.

If BF does not exist? I don't believe BF exist. That does not force anything such as you suggest. This is the sort of close minded thinking that probably is the source of most of your blatant failures.

Let's explore a few of the myriad possibilities:

1. A person that has a cast bought it.

2. A person that has a cast knows it isn't  real and does not say it is real

3. A person with a cast misidentified what they cast

4. A person with a cast was fooled by a promoter of BF cashing in on the gullible

The laughable claim of forcing just illustrates the ridiculous nature of the statement.

Are there fakers out there? Of course. One of the most celebrated tracks was a hoax that lasted for decades, the Wallace tracks. After the fact many BF believers would like to pretend that they knew the tracks were fakes from the start. So how did the hoax lead to the name of this fictional creature?

One of the things people want to pretend is that if they collect enough junk that a pile of junk cannot be just junk. Well it can be just junk and that is what the BF lot has. They have an increasing pile of junk they believes conceals a gem or two. It doesn't. The same ridiculous notion happened with 2012 and crop circles and chemtrails and other wacko ideas.

You know what the lie is. You are a liar and you know why you are a pathetic liar. You can stop being a liar but that is your choice.

Oh, the myriad of ways!

Let's cut to the chase. you think every BF footprint is fake. Right? I mean let's not mince words.

So whoever made it is a faker. I don't care who owns it. He's a faker.

Pssttt... all it takes is ONE.

[stereologist]

The fact  is that all hominids have 5 toes. These other toe counts have been marked as fakes by Meldrum.

 

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Oh, the myriad of ways!

Let's cut to the chase. you think every BF footprint is fake. Right? I mean let's not mince words.

So whoever made it is a faker. I don't care who owns it. He's a faker.

Pssttt... all it takes is ONE.

I already pointed out a faker. I suppose you don't read other people's posts. You'd rather misrepresent and lie about other posts. That's what you do.

I've already pointed out how a BF footprint is not fake, but not evidence for BF.

[Carnoferox]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Had I not read your presentation of the Gigantopithecus material I would not  have been as surprised as I was. It amazes me.

I appreciate your posts because a good part of your posts places an historical context to finds showing the progression of research which often is important important to understanding the changes in understanding we have of the world we live in.

Historical context is always crucial when examining cryptozoology. Cryptozoologists are often their own worst enemy because they refuse to let go of outdated ideas and progress beyond the mid-20th century.