Do bigfoots exist really?

[stereologist]

it is already well known that there are track fakers and not just one.

The tracks from the Patterson film group were fake tracks from the site of the hoax they filmed. The tracks look like fakes.

As I already pointed out there are excuses as to why these tracks look like fakes.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

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 Cryptozoologists are often their own worst enemy because they refuse to let go of outdated ideas and progress beyond the mid-20th century. 

You see it in the tail dragging petroglyphs that creationists have made in an attempt to deceive people into thinking humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

[Carnoferox]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You see it in the tail dragging petroglyphs that creationists have made in an attempt to deceive people into thinking humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

And the Ica stones, Acambaro figurines, Cambodian "stegosaur", etc. ad nauseam.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Carnoferox

[stereologist]

I didn't realize how big the list of exposed track fakers is. This is certainly not a comprehensive list which should be numbered at least 50.

1988 Tony Signorini - made big feet

1986 Anthony Wooldridge - followed tracks part way to a rock (he thought it was a yeti and its tracks)

1957 Ray Wallace

1982 Rant Mullens  - admits making fake tracks since 1930

1994 Michael R. Dennett  - finds the person who tricked Krantz with a track Krantz stated was definitely real

Loren Coleman has stated that at least 80% of reports and tracks are misidentifications or fakes. That is the opinion of a respected BF researcher.

Edited November 9, 2018 by stereologist

[Carnoferox]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I didn't realize how big the list of exposed track fakers is. This is certainly not a comprehensive list which should be numbered at least 50.

1988 Tony Signorini - made big feet

1986 Anthony Wooldridge - followed tracks part way to a rock (he thought it was a yeti and its tracks)

1957 Ray Wallace

1982 Rant Mullens  - admits making fake tracks since 1930

1994 Michael R. Dennett  - finds the person who tricked Krantz with a track Krantz stated was definitely real

Loren Coleman has stated that at least 80% of reports and tracks are misidentifications or fakes. That is the opinion of a respected BF researcher.

Don't forget the infamous Bossburg "cripplefoot" tracks by Ivan Marx.

[stereologist]

The photo of the ice ax and print in the snow is the Shipton photo.

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

Shipton was a practical joker at university and found out that yeti claims were good to make to finance expeditions to the Himalayas.

[Sakari]

9 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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?

You do know what you were using for an example I hope.

 

Quote

All protists, fungi, plants and animals are examples of eukaryotes.

Plants are not a good example for your point.

You need to use how many mammals larger than 300 lbs are known, or discovered. Not plants or Fungi.

[Minimalists]

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

it is already well known that there are track fakers and not just one.

The tracks from the Patterson film group were fake tracks from the site of the hoax they filmed. The tracks look like fakes.

As I already pointed out there are excuses as to why these tracks look like fakes.

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/how_bigfoot_got_his_name

[Minimalists]

11 hours ago, Trelane said:

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

There is no cover up by the gubbermint....This is used by CT'ers when they do not have a logical answer to the question at hand...I can't explain it so it has to be a gubbermint cover up!

Edited November 9, 2018 by Alien Origins

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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???

13 hours 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.

From what I remember reading most of those were found in caves. According to popular lore, Bigfoot doesn't spend time in caves much, but roams the wild woodlands night and day. Possibly meaning a lower chance of bones being found.

People say that bones of bears and wolves are found, but depending on the number of BFs, a BF bone would be much harder to find. If there is 2000 BFs out there, then that would be like equivalent to about 0.5% of the native US/Canada bear population. So for every 500 bear skeletons that are found we'd expect to find 2 BF skeletons. Which (unfortunately) have not been found and brought in to scientific study. So we can conclude one of maybe three things....

1) There is no Bigfoot, as there are no bones.

2) Bigfoot bones somehow are removed from discovery... buried, eaten, hidden...

3) There is a lot less bigfoot then 2000.

 

 

[stereologist]

I simply find it hard to believe that BF exists because no carcass has been found despite decades of looking. Fires, floods, storms, lightning all kill other animals. 

Lots of reports come in. There are loads of trail cams out there. People supposedly find tracks but not anything other than tracks. 

Consider the snow leopard. It numbers less than 5,000 yet it is filmed in the wild. It is elusive and lives far out yet it is regularly observed and filmed.

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

[+joc]

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

1.  There is evidence that people have cast fake prints.

2. There is no evidence that any of the cast prints are indeed real.

3. It is not on anyone to prove the non-existence of BF.  It is completely and totally on someone to prove the existence of BF.

I.e.    I saw a BF.   Really? Prove it!   No...YOU prove I didn't see one.

[Rlyeh]

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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?

It's interesting that people bring up concepts they don't understand to support their ignorant fantasies. You know a dimension isn't a place right?

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

It's interesting that people bring up concepts they don't understand to support their ignorant fantasies. You know a dimension isn't a place right?

Oh yeah....there is a dimension that is a place!  It is known by Physicists around the world as:

The Twilight Zone

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, Sakari said:

You do know what you were using for an example I hope.

 

Plants are not a good example for your point.

You need to use how many mammals larger than 300 lbs are known, or discovered. Not plants or Fungi.

Yes, Sakari, And how convenient it is that you omitted "animals" even though they were specifically included in the list.

New Ape Discovered

The fossil remains of a prehistoric primate species weighing a mere 7.7 lbs have been unearthed in Kenya.

Dating back 12.5 million years, the new species, which has been named Simiolus minutus, is known only from the discovery of three tiny teeth in the hills of East Africa.

 

So please, people, do NOT tell me that you know that all primates have been discovered because you *and* the scientists don't know that. In fact, the scientists would beg to differ with you.

Please don't feed me this guff that the 6+ million species not yet discovered are all fish and plants. Read the above and get a grip.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, joc said:

1.  There is evidence that people have cast fake prints.

2. There is no evidence that any of the cast prints are indeed real.

3. It is not on anyone to prove the non-existence of BF.  It is completely and totally on someone to prove the existence of BF.

I.e.    I saw a BF.   Really? Prove it!   No...YOU prove I didn't see one.

Joc,

1. Let's tell it like it is, there is not just evidence, there is PROOF that *some* prints have been faked. Joc, you do not know what I am setting up here. All it takes is 1 print out of a million to be real. And, guess what.... BF exists, right? So let it be.

2. disagree. the prints are of a natural population and there are standards like length to width ratio that seems to fit most prints. How can you have "standards" when they are all fake?

3. never said it was. And I do agree, it's on the one who makes the claim (ie BF exists) that has the onus on them to prove it. Another example, saying that of the 6+ million unknown species, none are primates puts the onus on the speaker to prove that. Keep reading. It is debunked as we speak.

you don't know the context in which I raised the question. All else is cool.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

As I  posted that well over 80% of species (6+ mill) have yet to have been found, some of you in here couldn't WAIT to put it to me that the missing could NOT include apes or even animals.

Meanwhile, as y'all were posting this crapola to me, UM had as one of its front  page stories, the discovery of a new ape. (their words).

And yet somehow I know that all that means to y'all is to ignore that and find yet another way to dig your heels in on me. You''ll never admit you were wrong.

I make errs, but the one thing I will never do in here is deliberately LIE to *anyone* just to make some ubiquitous point.

I wish the hell y'all would treat me the same.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

The on

53 minutes ago, joc said:

Oh yeah....there is a dimension that is a place!  It is known by Physicists around the world as:

The Twilight Zone

Hey Joc, you like blues! How the hell am I gonna hate ya? lol. Your a brother-from-another-mother.

peace love dove.

[stereologist]

32 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Joc,

1. Let's tell it like it is, there is not just evidence, there is PROOF that *some* prints have been faked. Joc, you do not know what I am setting up here. All it takes is 1 print out of a million to be real. And, guess what.... BF exists, right? So let it be.

2. disagree. the prints are of a natural population and there are standards like length to width ratio that seems to fit most prints. How can you have "standards" when they are all fake?

3. never said it was. And I do agree, it's on the one who makes the claim (ie BF exists) that has the onus on them to prove it. Another example, saying that of the 6+ million unknown species, none are primates puts the onus on the speaker to prove that. Keep reading. It is debunked as we speak.

you don't know the context in which I raised the question. All else is cool.

This is the ridiculous residualization issue.

The idea is that if a pile of evidence becomes large enough that a large pile cannot all be bad. That's a false idea. 

I like to think of this as a pile of manure. Make the world's biggest pile of manure and there are no gems in there, just manure.

The idea of a large pile of manure having a 1 in a million chance of a gem in there is false. It is still 0.

As far as the print distribution goes it is easy to have a fake population have a normal distribution. A real population is skewed. It tails off large or small.

The existence of new primates is not in question. New primates are found every few years but they are all small and all related to known species. No 8 foot tall unknown primates are going to be found.

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

As I  posted that well over 80% of species (6+ mill) have yet to have been found, some of you in here couldn't WAIT to put it to me that the missing could NOT include apes or even animals.

Meanwhile, as y'all were posting this crapola to me, UM had as one of its front  page stories, the discovery of a new ape. (their words).

And yet somehow I know that all that means to y'all is to ignore that and find yet another way to dig your heels in on me. You''ll never admit you were wrong.

I make errs, but the one thing I will never do in here is deliberately LIE to *anyone* just to make some ubiquitous point.

I wish the hell y'all would treat me the same.

This is just a ludicrous comment that an estimate of the number of unknown species must there include 8 foot tall primates living in North America. 

This is just ridiculous.

Next we'll see this being applied to 400 foot whales and herds of sauropods.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

This is the ridiculous residualization issue.

The idea is that if a pile of evidence becomes large enough that a large pile cannot all be bad. That's a false idea. 

I like to think of this as a pile of manure. Make the world's biggest pile of manure and there are no gems in there, just manure.

The idea of a large pile of manure having a 1 in a million chance of a gem in there is false. It is still 0.

As far as the print distribution goes it is easy to have a fake population have a normal distribution. A real population is skewed. It tails off large or small.

The existence of new primates is not in question. New primates are found every few years but they are all small and all related to known species. No 8 foot tall unknown primates are going to be found.

 

Basically everything you point is pure unsubstantiated emoting. you can prove nothing.

however you don't know what symmetry means inre, a bell curve because it is symmetric about the vertical line, the mean. And you obviously don't know what a bell curve is anyway, since it does tail off on both ends.

Other than that, your post is perfectly useless. Have a nice day!

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

This is just a ludicrous comment that an estimate of the number of unknown species must there include 8 foot tall primates living in North America. 

This is just ridiculous.

Next we'll see this being applied to 400 foot whales and herds of sauropods.

 

I never said that it DID. But you must include that possibility because the scientists have no way to eliminate that possibility. neither do you.

[stereologist]

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Basically everything you point is pure unsubstantiated emoting. you can prove nothing.

however you don't know what symmetry means inre, a bell curve because it is symmetric about the vertical line, the mean. And you obviously don't know what a bell curve is anyway, since it does tail off on both ends.

Other than that, your post is perfectly useless. Have a nice day!

 

Of course a bell curve is a symmetrical curve and natural populations do not form symmetrical curves. 

LOL. I don't know what a normal curve is? Please tell me about the central limit theorems. Can't watch for a chuckle head like you to respond to that.

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

I never said that it DID. But you must include that possibility because the scientists have no way to eliminate that possibility. neither do you.

Yes it is possible to eliminate such a situation. There are plenty of possibilities that can be eliminated and an 8 foot tall hominid that leaves no trace of itself is something that can be eliminated.

 

[PrisonerX]

18 hours ago, stereologist said:

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.

The best part of being in the know, is that you don't feel obligated at all to prove anything to anybody. 

When people doubt and mock it just becomes all the more enjoyable.

Predictably you'll call this another empty post, and that will give me more joy than you could imagine. Because if you haven't yet figured it out, I'm not here to convince anybody at all.

I'm here solely to amuse myself at you and your ilks expense, while simply telling the truth - Sasquatch is real, and compartments within the government already know about it. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by PrisonerX