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 -
Guyver

Scientific Proof of Sasquatch

205 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Hey, RG, how ya'  been?

Well, of course. The mountain gorillas, 1902.

And how old is the legend of bigfoot...? hmmm, how long has Putin been around?   :-)  j/k

There is an American Indian tribe in the pacific northwest that holds the oral tradition that "big hairy man" was here before they were. 20,000 years?

In a physics book the introduction starts with a discussion of the tale of a city of gold and the conquistadors effort to find that city. At the time it was possible that such a city existed. Launching expeditions to look through the uncharted area was a reasonable thing to do. But it would not make sense to launch such an expedition today since we know the area in great detail and there is no place for that city of gold to exist.

Crypto believers often point to things like the okapi and the gorilla and other animals. They point out these were found. In fact, they were found rather quickly and quickly had samples allowing scientific analysis. Patches of fur and other things were quickly located. The same cannot be stated of bigfoot. Despite many more people and many more years there is no a tooth, bone, hair, scat, blood, or anything else to show for the effort. 

Bigfoot shows pretend to go beyond showing the existence. They pretend to know characteristics of this unseen no evidence idea. They will assign sounds to them, habits to them, diets to them, etc. Yet they cannot come up with a hair sample or a good photo. Bigfootery is about pretending and making up excuses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Myles
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

In a physics book the introduction starts with a discussion of the tale of a city of gold and the conquistadors effort to find that city. At the time it was possible that such a city existed. Launching expeditions to look through the uncharted area was a reasonable thing to do. But it would not make sense to launch such an expedition today since we know the area in great detail and there is no place for that city of gold to exist.

Crypto believers often point to things like the okapi and the gorilla and other animals. They point out these were found. In fact, they were found rather quickly and quickly had samples allowing scientific analysis. Patches of fur and other things were quickly located. The same cannot be stated of bigfoot. Despite many more people and many more years there is no a tooth, bone, hair, scat, blood, or anything else to show for the effort. 

Bigfoot shows pretend to go beyond showing the existence. They pretend to know characteristics of this unseen no evidence idea. They will assign sounds to them, habits to them, diets to them, etc. Yet they cannot come up with a hair sample or a good photo. Bigfootery is about pretending and making up excuses.

Well said. 

No hair is very damming to the believers argument.  It essentially voids any of the supposed found nests of the creature.   Any large hairy animal would leave hairs where they nest.   I also think it voids most sightings where the person claims to know exactly where the bigfoot was going through dense foliage.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DodgyDaoist
On 07/11/2018 at 2:22 PM, stereologist said:
Quote

 

So you can explain away scat - maybe. That requires 100% usage of bodies of water o hide the scat. But that does not cover lack of teeth, bones, hair even if they 100% used water as a toilet.

The camera stuff just suggest that 100% of the people are incompetent with poor equipment. Not buying that either. I think that the issue is that only crappy pictures are given because the rest of the  photos identify the subjects as something other than a blursquatch. The shaking of the camera allows for the identify of the photo subject to not be identified.

Then you point out why people can be avoided and why they miss things in the woods. That doesn't explain why people see elusive animals such as cougars, bears, martens, mink, wolves, foxes, etc. in the woods.

Simply not buying these arguments. They are excuses as to the failure of the finding of BF and are clearly not applicable to animals that have been found and recorded in the wild.

 

Early man is known to have buried their dead as well as Neanderthal man, so there is the possibility that these creatures could also.

The camera stuff is something one can always test if one chooses to do so.

Yes, people see elusive animals, animals have behavioural traits, feeding habits and predictable patterns. Living in Africa, there are enough elusive nocturnal creatures that are spotted from time to time, but then I have also witnessed the fact that people had to have an Elephant pointed out which was less than 30 metres from them just standing in the bush. Just as one is able to track an animal through the bush, its just as impossible to track a Koisan (Bushman) through the same bush. Animal behaviour versus intelligence and knowledge of what to do and what not to do when travelling so as not to leave an indication of passing.

For a creature to remain as elusive as it has for such a length of time suggests that there is a level of intelligence above that of just simple animal.Maybe not on a par with humans, but certainly intelligent enough to realise the danger humans pose to it, and the ability to convey that danger to its young and thus down through the generations to ensure survival. Or should we say intelligent enough for the creature to have either developed an instinctual reaction of flight over fight in the presence of humans or an ability of generational conveyance of knowledge of that danger.

Not trying to sell any arguments, simply stating the fact that humans dont live in nature, but only pass through it from time to time, and have habits and patterns that can be avoided if something with intelligence chooses or knows how to do so.

 

Edited by DodgyDaoist
Responded inside quote by mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
7 minutes ago, DodgyDaoist said:

simply stating the fact that humans dont live in nature

Many humans live in and spend much time in nature.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 minutes ago, DodgyDaoist said:

Early man is known to have buried their dead as well as Neanderthal man, so there is the possibility that these creatures could also.

The camera stuff is something one can always test if one chooses to do so.

Yes, people see elusive animals, animals have behavioural traits, feeding habits and predictable patterns. Living in Africa, there are enough elusive nocturnal creatures that are spotted from time to time, but then I have also witnessed the fact that people had to have an Elephant pointed out which was less than 30 metres from them just standing in the bush. Just as one is able to track an animal through the bush, its just as impossible to track a Koisan (Bushman) through the same bush. Animal behaviour versus intelligence and knowledge of what to do and what not to do when travelling so as not to leave an indication of passing.

For a creature to remain as elusive as it has for such a length of time suggests that there is a level of intelligence above that of just simple animal.Maybe not on a par with humans, but certainly intelligent enough to realise the danger humans pose to it, and the ability to convey that danger to its young and thus down through the generations to ensure survival. Or should we say intelligent enough for the creature to have either developed an instinctual reaction of flight over fight in the presence of humans or an ability of generational conveyance of knowledge of that danger.

Not trying to sell any arguments, simply stating the fact that humans dont live in nature, but only pass through it from time to time, and have habits and patterns that can be avoided if something with intelligence chooses or knows how to do so.

So if they bury their dead then we'd find the burials wouldn't we? As you point out Neanderthal man buried their dead. How do we know? Because quite a few burials have been found.

So some people are unable to see an elephant nearby. That simply has nothing to do with the fact that no one gets any clear evidence of BF. Let's suppose no one can track a Koisan. Does that mean that they do not exist? No.

The problem with the intelligence idea and the cleverness idea is that BF never really does anything with their cleverness. Suppose they are more clever that people. Well no tools or homes are made. Maybe they are so clever they never apply their cleverness. Take people. They get killed by fires, floods, cars, storms, lightning and yet we never find a clever BF killed.

Some humans do live in nature. Most do not. Is it possible to avoid detection endlessly by a population of animals? Sure if they are smaller. Some bird species are found not to be extinct. Some birds are even brightly colored. But an 8 foot tall creature is not small. It is noticed. Yet it is so clever it never leaves evidence behind except for well formed footprints in mud that could easily be avoided.

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.