29Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOver one third of habitable earth exists, outside of the human sphere; only such a self delusional creature as man would ignore this reality.
October 26th, 2012, 06:25 PM
Over one third of habitable earth exists, outside of the human sphere; only such a self delusional creature as man would ignore this reality.
What proof do you have of such creatures existing in the first place though? The most notable example of these cryptids, Sasquatch, is said to inhabit North America. To have a sustainable population, at least 500 individuals are generally postulated to be needed. How have they totally evaded all the millions of people that go into the woods each day, and why have no dead bodies or fossils (ice-age or that age range) ever been found of them?
If I ran across a neanderthal while hiking in Oregon, I would not have ignored it. I'm thinking most other people wouldn't either. Being skeptical of a viable population of prehistoric humans living among us seems like a pretty safe default mindset for the general population. Of course, I definitely think there's an ancient sea dragon in Loch Ness. Goes without saying, really.
Both the Northern Cascades and even the Olympic mountains, have entire valleys which only sees a human on the ground every few years--if that often. Vast stretches without roads or trails.
Still, though there needs to be credible proof and simply isn't any. If anything the fact big foot has been "sighted" in nearly state of the US, most of which don't have parts nearly as remote as the Pacific North West suggest this is a powerful meme prone to all sorts of hoax and false positives.
Don't forget about the Siskiyou-Rogue wilderness area. It's a bit like the Northern Cascades mixed with the Badlands, all in a marine climate.
If there are Sasquatch (unlikely), then I think that they would be Ursidae Hominoidea.
I lived in the north Eastern Washington area for over 5 years, there isn't enough area on those regions to support a viable breeding population. Not to mention that alleged sightings are not limited to those areas so there would have been a confirmed contact with humans finding remains, or capturing/killing a live specimen at some point.
"Ursidae Homioidea"? Are you suggesting a crossbreed between the two groups? or what?
The "footers" claim that "Squatches" live in every US state except Hawaii. This includes NE Texas. If you weren't aware, we are just now coming out of a 2 year drought. Creeks and stock ponds dried up. Many ranchers were sending their cattle to market early, because of the cost of trucking in water. If BF lived here...he would have been hard up for a drink, and would have to come to the few stock ponds that still contained water. Funny how no one saw one. Funny how the 1000's of hunters each year never see them...or their dogs that locate wild hogs never detect them. Funny how night-vision, motion-detecting digital trail cameras never seem to capture them.
There's an old saying about "A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence." I don't think this the case with BF. The probability that an animal that large could go undetected for so many years is just ludicrous.
The Latin suffix oidea translates directly to "resembling". No I didn't intend to imply any crossbreeding. Just morphological similarity, such as in the case of Morelia viridis, and Corallus caninus.
Hominoidea is a specific taxonomic superfamily though Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia so the use of the term is very odd in the context you are using.
Damn, all the good Latin is always already taken! Hey, at least I used it in the species category.Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
Lol, you used it in the superfamily level, species would have been Homo sapiens and Ursus maritimus
Oops, I should have said "Ursus". Oh well. High school biology was more than twenty years ago and any Latin I know is deduced mostly from context.
Giant Panda: slow moving, limited diet, stupid as mammals come; first discovered by westerners in 1869. An intelligent bipedal cousin, who, for obvious reasons (aborigines, north american indians etc), stays well clear of man, and is infinitely more in tune with the wilderness, will have a much greater ability to avoid contact. The Himalayas, dense jungles of SE Asia, are vast areas still unexplored. Proof?, Patterson tape, Bluff creek '67,has never, satisfactorily, been debunked; the articulation of the extended arms could not be performed by a man in a suit.
Not one expert in the field of cinematic special effects, of the time, has ever been able to explain the musculature clearly visible under the fur.
Zana, female captured by group of hunters in 1850 Ochamchir region of Georgia, Russia. Classic Neanderthal features and physicality. Brought back and caged to small mountain village of
T'khina, became domesticated, developed a taste for alchohol and was impregnated by men of the village, youngest son Khwit, died 1950, displayed immense strength like his mother.
Sightings of such creatures have been reported at the edge of civilization by totally unrelated groups accross the globe, are they all lying?
God, its like UFO nuts. Why is any scepticism about reported sightings treated as accusations of lying?
People make terrible eye witnesses. Stories get repeated and distorted over time. People make mistakes. And, yes, sometime people lie (for all sorts of motives).
You provided no sources for any of your stories that we can check. Why shouldn't I assume you just made them up?
A lack of ability to prove something untrue does not mean people who don't buy into the conspiracy are accusing others of lying.
I don't care how many stories you have or who recounts them, I won't believe in Bigfoot without evidence that he DOES exist. That doesn't mean I think you're a liar or stupid, it just means I default to skepticism.
Are they stupid or intelligent? They are not bipedal, they are quadrupedal the same as all other members of the bear family. The family, by the way is not a close relative to Homonids, but rather is closely related to Pinnipeds (seals, walruses, etc.) China was not well explored by Western teams until the 1860s is easily explained, the Quing Dynasty which ruled China was very closed about relations with western powers, thus only small amounts of information was gleaned during it early and middle rule. AS soon as humans started actively looking discovery was soon after.
According to what analysis? and why only one distinct video in 45 years? Yeti are NOT reported from the SE Asian jungles, Sasquatch is reported from the VERY well explored North American continent, especially the North west.
According to what refernces? examiniation of Khwits skull has shown it to be classic modern human.
Not in the southern hemisphere, and not in regions that could actually support a viable living population of large mammals without them being discovered. And also not any sightings if a verifiable nature in modern times. They are not lying but it is well known that eye-witness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence.
'UFO nuts'? those that hold contradictory views to yourself, you lable nuts. Do not remember accusing any sceptic of lying, proof I suppose that people see what they want to see,
even in a black & white, brief post. RE 'sources of stories', you've not heard of the patterson tape? I did not make it up, it's out there, do your research, then try to make a rational,
considered assessment.
No, just those who accept any tenuous hints of something uncertain as Proof but dismiss solid evidence that they don't like.
No, you are the one who didn't understand. Why do you leap to the assumption that a sceptic is accusing witnesses of lying. That is one possibility but not the first one to consider.Do not remember accusing any sceptic of lying, proof I suppose that people see what they want to see,
Yep, done that. Do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't done any research? Maybe they are just more objective and less gullible than you.do your research, then try to make a rational, considered assessment.
'Bipedal cousin' was refering to hominoid entities, not the panda. Had stated, this creature is slow moving and stupid, and yet remained undiscovered 'til late 19c. As opposed to
an intelligent, mobile biped.
Read your own post, clearly states an accusation of calling sceptics liars.
'Tenuous hints', be specific, and offer some contrary explanation to the Patterson tape. Just saying it's not evidence, without any attempt to clarify why, will not do.
I said: "Why is any scepticism about reported sightings treated as accusations of lying?"
The intent was (and I still think this is what it says): when sceptics note that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, the True Believers always seem to ask, of the sceptics, "why do you say these witnesses are lying?". Whereas, the sceptics are not accusing anyone of lying. They are just pointing out the inherent, and well-documented, unreliability of people as witnesses.
Ahh, and as I noted the panda was not discovered until the 19th century for noted geopolitical reasons, not due to elusiveness.
Yet to offer an acknowledgment, never mind a rebuttal of the Patterson tape. CCTV has been enough, in law-courts, across the globe, to convict many.
Evidence?. Before Photoshop, a video exists, of a creature, clearly, and, unmistakably, not human. Debunk with evidence.
We have been through every aspect of the Patterson tape on this forum a many times over. Basically, the most likely explanation is that it is a guy in a suit. One shaky, poor quality video at an undetermined speed is a very long way shy of proof. All the subsequent analysis of the video and the back stories are not sufficient to serve as proof, not by a long shot.
The thing is, if a large communty of large bipeds were out there somewhere, one would expect a good level of evidence for it, especially with so many Bigfoot nuts desperately trying to get their hands on some. Yet, there is very little and of poor quality.
On balance then, why should we take it seriously?
Despite major advancements in photography, no one has been able to take a decent picture of Bigfoot or any other large crypto-zooid. Hunters equipped with the most modern advanced weaponry known to the sport have been unable to even inflict a flesh wound upon any large bipedal simian roaming the woods. Video clips, film and photographs are primarily grainy and blurry with no real distinct sharp imagery. Hunters who can shoot a moose a half mile away can't hit a bull in the ass with a bag of feathers even if they were standing next to one, every time Bigfoot is sighted. Even aboriginals or long time denizens of the woods can only speak of legends and genuine encounters are usually the result of not enough blood in the alcohol system, cabin fever or a steady diet of red berries. Although a good sighting improves the souvenir sales bottom line. .
Last edited by zinjanthropos; November 9th, 2012 at 02:47 PM.
November 11th, 2012, 10:23 PM
This is taken from the files of the National ███████████and ████████████████████████. The ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████. Analysts at the bi-annual █████████████████event have confirmed direct ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████████████████████ ███ forensics. National ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████ to specify the samples taken from the ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ ███.██████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████dated███/██/███.███████████████
"poor quality video","a guy in a suit" the most likely explanation is, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
"Shaky, poor quality video" What would you expect, in the circumstances ?
I would expect that in the next 45 year, actual physical specimens would have been shot and killed. It is not possible for a breeding population (500+) individuals to have gone unfound in North America. It doesnt Walk like anything but a guy in a suit.
Hominid cousins, do not frequent our side of town, they are equally intelligent, and elect to avoid mankind with good reason. What do you suppose goes on, in the third of inhabitable
earth, man does not occupy?. Camera shy?, for sure.
In the last decade, large mammals have been discovered, even where untold, intense scrutiny, had sought them out, without success.
Orang Utang, Chimpanzie, Gorilla and Gibbon are a branch of mammals, refered to as apes, granted. Are we the only twig on our branch?
"What evidence" Skirting around the edges, not bringing forth any credible explanation, or specifics to debunk the Patterson tape, is simply waffle.
Let's be specific, explain the elongated, articulated forearm.
Well, we are now. There were a couple of others that have died out - neanderthals are the most famous. Those little 'hobbit' people in Indonesia were still around less than 20000 years ago. We might find some others like this, but they've certainly died out by now. We're the extremely lucky winners in this particular group.Are we the only twig on our branch?
What reliable and verifiable evidence will you provide to support your assertion that they are the same intelligence as humans?
What specific mammals? And what are the human urbanization and population levels of those areas? North America, and especially the Pac Northwest where the epicenter of "sightings" are reported, is and outdoors and hunting mecca. The amount of people out each weekend, and the need for so many of them to shoot anything that moves, and there have not been any undocumented large mammals discovered in decades.
No we are not the only Twig on our branch, as you have already pointed out by listing the other members of our family, Hominidae. We are one of three living genera of the subfamily Homininae the others being chimps and gorillas.
Easily done with a sick that has a glove at the end.
Let's start with some of the 'new mammals' ;Lesula 'monkey', Goodman mouse lemur, Callicebus monkey, a Blossom bat cousin, Tursiops Australis; Dolphin, Saola deer,
Mus cypriacus, Sundaland clouded leopard, Paucidentomys vermidax. All discovered, in the last ten years. "What specific mammals"-
Evidence of intelligence?, we don't find them, because they do not want to be found, RE; Aborigines, North American Indians.
And the musculature, underneath the fur?
You know this for a fact?, typical, arrogant, smalltown based hypothesis.
Really? Most of these were already known to people in the area. Most of them, partly overlapping with that first group, are the result of scientific analysis showing that these are separate species rather than merely local variants of a more widespread species as originally incorrectly identified. Straightening out errors of the past is worthwhile, but it's not an original "discovery". And you can hardly say that science has "discovered" an animal that already has a name in the language of the people in the area.All discovered, in the last ten years.
Most?, not all. Sort of proves the point. "known to people in the area"? RE; Yeti, Sasquatch etc.
"We have been through every aspect" my rearend. Basically the most likely explanation is that it is an unknown hominid, unless you ignore the blatant evidence; elongated arms, breasts,
Musculature, unfeasibly fakable, at the time. Or, debunk with proof.
*Lesula 'monkey' - described 2012, a 2ft long monkey from a barely explored region of the Congo rainforest.
*Goodman's mouse lemur - described in 2005, a palm sized lemur. not a large mammal by any means
*Callicebus monkey - again a small monkey form a remote region, in this case the Andean foothills of Bolivia.
*"A blossom bat cousin"- what size and species please...
*Tursiops australis, - described 2011, Long known, but individuals were thought to be members of two already described bottle-nose dolphin species. It was identified as new based on DNA and skull morphology.
*Saola - a deer described 20 years ago form the mountains of Laos and Vietnam. They are in areas with little human habitation.
*Mus cypriacus - described 2006, a mouse native to the island of Cypress and discovered by DNA testing.
*Sundaland clouded leopard - originally described in 1823! it was moved form subspecies to species status in 2006
*Paucidentomys vermidax - described 2012, a shrew rat found in the rainforests of Indonesia.
So most are NOT large mammals, such as the rest of the thread has been about, and two of the largest on your list were both known long before their description/taxonomic status change. The third large mammal, the Saola, was described 20 years ago, from a remote area with little human habituation.
Ok, lets try this again without the empty assertions, what verifiable evidence do you have of intelligence? Why have no bodies, or sub-fossils, or fossils ever been found? We have sub-fossils and fossils of the other large North American Mammals.
Again we have the disparaging term "most", not apparently all, the fact "most" of these afore mentioned mammals have been identified in the last decade you conveniently override,
referring to size. "Barely explored region of the Congo rainforest" Barely explored regions, are all over the globe, but you would know that, because you, have apparently explored, and defined
them, and all their fauna.
Still waiting for a credible debunking of 'Patterson tape' "easily done with a stick and a glove at the end", does not explain the length of the upper arm, and how it flexes way beyond
the normal constraints of human anatomy. Try again, that was pathetic.
Sorry, I missed this before. What do you mean? That indigenous people all over the world knew about the exploring, exploiting empires of Europe and deliberately decided to stay away from them?Evidence of intelligence?, we don't find them, because they do not want to be found, RE; Aborigines, North American Indians.
If not. What are you getting at here.
'Callicebus monkey-again from a remote region in the Andean foothills'. Remote region!, that is the point. Bipedal hominids other than Man, do not frequent 'civilised territories' They are successful, hunter gatherers, and do not need 'civilisation'. By the way, what University of indoctrination are you bound by?.
Most hominidal bipeds are also known "in the area". Convenient point when you need it.
adelady, in North America and Australia, to their cost, the indiginous folks, did not see us coming.
Some hominids have however, with acute perception, found their own niche,in their own domain.
You do realize that there is a difference between undiscovered mammals the size of chichahuas and undiscovered mammals the size of small cows right?
yes
Then why are you trying to use the list of mammals you posted as evidence that Sasquatch my be an actual animal living in North America?
Please, when you reply on this thread, try to answer the specific points, without surfing away on your blinkered, state sponsored hogwash.
'What verifiable proof do you have that they are equally intelligent' They?, Who the f**k are they?
I have. I am waiting for you to respond to my question, rather then trying to avoid it.
Why are you trying to use the list of mammals you posted as evidence that Sasquatch my be an actual animal living in North America?
Sasquatch, you have asserted they are as smart as humans, what is you verifiable evidence?
"State Sponsored"?
If you choose to ignore the evidence, then the evidence does not exist. Try to explain the Patterson tape, without using banal, glib diatribe.
Pennsylvania, albino hominid, caught on tape. Check it out.
Disinformation is a powerful tool, half of the dudes on this section are piling it on.
Is that why you're using it?
One 45 year old tape filmed at an unknown speed is not viable evidence, when compared to the large amount of evidence that should be there and isn't eg, fossils, and physical specimens
I remember seeing that video as a kid. Can't remember what I thought of it then.
It does look good though. They are long forarms and there does seem to be some muscle definition, he looks a solid fella.
The way he walks in the patterson video was very man like... from the grainy pics I detected a self conscious swagger which looked pretty natural, he seemed to look at the camera, almost flinch, and then casually walk on, not hanging about but certainly not showing any signs of panic. Which conveys and intelligence and self awareness equal to mans... in the being walking in the forrest.
The bodies swagger did seem to convey a very powerful and agile build.
If it's a fake then I think the did a great job with the suit... and should've got a closer shot.
Why was the camera paning around to the trees after the horse walked away at the begining? Would be interesting to hear what 'patterson' who ever shot the video and witnessed it have to say.
On the possibility of big foots going undetected, close relations to human they would be very slippery customers, and could posses physichal skills with climbing etc far greater than any person.
I'm not sure how much of the world is true wilderness... I can imagine in places like the Hymalayas theres a lot of wilderness. This creature would realistically have much stronger senses than us and would smell us coming like a hound dog... it would probably smell an inbred dog fed on crufts even further away. If a dog left it's handler and chased one into the woods and caught up with him, the dog would probably run away or get killed.
I hope there are relatives out there living wild and evading 'The bald ones'. Maybe in 100,000 years our kind will be gone due to our own ignorance and they will evolve into an even higher form of the homosomfinkus.
In the old days they used to have freak shows... what if somebody is born freakishly strong and hairy and they choose to go live in the forrest and mountains to avoid the cruelty of others? possible.
I find it unlikely... it would have to be an incredibly shy lineage.
Disinformation from who? Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy to keep bigfoot hidden?
Haven't you got your check yet?
Naw...not yet...the NWO was a little late with this month's check, because there was mix up with a couple of 9/11 truthers I "suicided". Apparently, no one missed them...so their death was unreported, and I didn't get credit.
Pennsyvanian albino hominid, check it out and debunk.
Man would be the only twig on the hominid branch, more unlikely than gorillas being the only ape.
Im still waiting for my question to be answered with actual verifiable evidence....
I'm still waiting for you to debunk the Patterson tape, with solid, scientific proof.
Say something relevent, or go to another thread.
something relevent.
Now you can go
It looks like a suit...it seems like it's neck is thicker than it's head. Compare it to the neck and hair line of the albino gorrila... Doesn't seem quite right.
Didn't seem to be a twinkle in the eye though it stared straight at the cam and had a (very narrow beam) torch in it's face.
Even a fake eye would twinkle... but a hole in a mask would not.
But can I go go? I've got these new pair of knee-high boots I want to try out.
I agree. It's a couple of teens having some fun.It looks like a suit...it seems like it's neck is thicker than it's head. Compare it to the neck and hair line of the albino gorrila... Doesn't seem quite right.
Didn't seem to be a twinkle in the eye though it stared straight at the cam and had a (very narrow beam) torch in it's face.
Even a fake eye would twinkle... but a hole in a mask would not.
Maybe it is; maybe it's the real thing.
This is the problem with "debunking" a claim. Debunking shows the fallacies but it does not 'prove' one way or the other.
If our angry friend over here wants the issue settled, the onus is on him to provide supportive evidence for his claims, rather than dismissing genetics. He is the one that cannot support his claims and instead, he's laughing off the science ("Accidentally fused- You bought that?") and demanding that others do his work for him and "Prove him wrong."
It's the standard tactic used by someone that cannot support his arguments.
Difficult to contort a mask, in this way, without excessive technical assistance.
One of the things that struck me with the patterson video is the uniform hair coverage... ok bears have this but human types? Wheres the beard/mane?
It must have been young.
And here's the core of the problem. Let's postulate that this was not a hoax or a joke perpetrated by the film maker.I'm still waiting for you to debunk the Patterson tape, with solid, scientific proof.
1. this is a film made on low tech equipment in poor light conditions many decades ago.
2. this is the only such film
3. there is no attempt at scientific, or even naturalist or hunting style, verification of the sighting. Even the amateur egg/butterfly/botany-collectors of the time recorded details of what they were doing.
4. there are no notes on trying to read tracks, or to collect scat, or find a cave/nest/other shelter. No evidence was collected, or even attempted, of discarded bones or other food scraps. No middens or other human style waste disposal were found or even sought.
So we arrive at the point where we have a film that is the equivalent of an anecdote. Anecdotes are data - but they are the lowest possible standard of data. They can merely prompt a hypothesis - and that's only when you have many of them.
A single isolated anecdote, with no scientific evidence other than itself, may prompt a search for other evidence, but that's all it can do. It's too weak to support a scientific theory or analysis all by itself.
So the scientific response to the challenge set "debunk the Patterson tape, with solid, scientific proof" is .....
There is nothing scientific here for consideration. Then we go back to the top here and we see that we've been presuming all along that this is not a joke or a hoax by the film-maker. We can still presume that - but we have no way of knowing that the film-maker wasn't recording someone else's joke or hoax. Seeing as there is
a. no similar evidence - filmed or other visual type evidence.
b. no supporting evidence. No tracks, no scat, no food waste, no habitation, no evidence of juveniles. No dead bodies.
c. no inferential evidence. No sign of ecological or food web or other processes that need a largish creature to fill an ecological niche that is apparently empty nor signs of creatures being displaced by an unidentified other organism with similar food/nesting requirements.
There is nothing here that a scientist can do. (Except try to fund a search for supporting evidence.)
Our angry friend?. Who are you including in your 'our' reference, as your allies?.
My multiple personalities.
You shore do talk purdy like....^^^what she said.
Wrong again, this is not the only footage of said creature. If you divert from the indoctrination you've been subjected to, by the gods of your acadamy, you will find, that despite your delusional, blinkered grasp of reality, there are hominids
on this planet other than man.
Yes, you're living proof.
What?
What?! Yeah, I said it!
Eye for an eye, damnit. I plead 'no contest.'
Nobody indoctrinated us. You're talking like a crazy conspiracy theorist. We are just science minded people who have examined the evidence and determined it to be lacking.
What indoctrination? What academy? What gods? Just ... what?
Well..when I went to electronics school...we had a course that taught us not to believe in bigfoot.What indoctrination? What academy? What gods? Just ... what?
Damn. Maybe if I hadn't dropped out of university I would have had that too. Did you get a certificate?
Dr. Strange B.B.S.
(Bigfoot is B.S.)
Damn you neverfly, I'm losing my testosterone by the minute.
So you're turning into a chick?
Sweet!
You would have got away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.
I am a chick, F*ckwit
edit: inappropriate statement.
At one time, there was what- five different species of human living together?
Now, it's down to one. Yeah, past is past. Evolution and all that. But something tells me it's a shame. I think it's incredible to imagine what it would be like if all five species of human had survived to today. Imagine talking to another kind of human on the internet.
Shut up. Literally, another kind.
Sadly, it's not the case.
If there was a bigfoot, I, for one, would be delighted and at the front of the battle line to fight for it's independence and survival, that no one hunts or messes with that species.
As it is, there's no evidence that there is this 'bigfoot' clod-hopping around the worlds forests and mountains. I do not believe there is such a thing.
But that is just that I lack belief in it. That can be changed, quite easily, by the presentation of actual evidence.
Humans claim to see fairies (Sylvia Browne), ghosts, alien visitors and all manner of things. Claims mean pretty much, diddly squat.
If evidence is actually obtained that there really is bigfoot, you'd be surprised to find the skeptics would be very supportive.
But claiming that they are indoctrinated, disinformation agents and the like just because they lack belief in something not scientifically supported is absurd.
Then quit complaining about losing testosterone.
You should be grateful. A "thank you" would have sufficed.
And im a bigfoot... so if you wanna come stalk me a little then private message me and i'll give you co-ordinates.
I warn you now... females are hard to find, it's mating season all year round.
I'm sorry.
Who controls the media?
Yeah. I was wondering about that when I wrote it. Unfortunately, it makes the evidence picture worse.Wrong again, this is not the only footage of said creature.
Now we have 3, 23, 103 visual (anecdotal) reports of something. Two problems arise -
A. Has anyone carefully analysed all, every. single. one., of the similarities, differences and discrepancies between these various recordings? Has this process been used to reject one or more of the reports? There must be a hoax or a trick in there somewhere - there always has been in every other contentious area (see Loch Ness). Has this process amalgamated, refined or defined the unarguable features common to all of them?
B. Bigger problem. The more sightings reported, the more opportunities for seeking, and finding, physical evidence. How many of these sightings have prompted efforts (naturalist, hunter, scientific) to locate supporting evidence? Tracks, scat, bodies, waste, shelter, damage to plants or trees. All, most, some, none of these sightings gave rise to contemporaneous searches for physical supporting evidence? Let's go with some as the most likely answer. Where are these records? Why do people persist with poorly made films as the prime evidence when there is other, better evidence which can be subjected to chemical and biological testing? If there is no such physical evidence, why wasn't it sought? If people tried to find it, what did they do, what did they look for, what did they find in areas where they expected tracks or scat, where is this stuff?
The more people cite visual evidence only, the more inclined I become to dismissing it as evidence. The developments in recording technology of the last couple of decades would surely have allowed someone, lots of someones possibly, to set up passive, permanent, motion-triggered film equipment in remote but likely locations for reasonable periods of time.
Big bussiness men.
Who do you think controls the media?...and do you think those that control the media are trying to prevent the discovery of BF?
Totally sexist, you kn*b
I agree that the media can, at times, have a slant. But that doesn't really pertain to this topic, does it. Why would FOX news, for example, want to hide bigfoot and if they wanted to, what makes you think the many, many media outlets available wouldn't disagree and publish? All other animals are well documented.
It's a matter of missing supportive evidence, not a desire to hide bigfoot.
| « Telekinesis, power armor, and foresight? | Is gravity merely thrust? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
