Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
david4121

Do bigfoots exist really?

532 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Carnoferox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.