September 1st, 2013, 10:42 AM
I'd like to challenge all Bigfoot skeptics on Facebook to subscribe to groups & pages about Bigfoot, so you can see what videos & pics are submitted to us & what most of us think of 99.9% of them. My reason for issuing this challenge is that I get the feeling most of you think we believe every pic & video we see
My challenge to you is to get everyone you know who believes in Bigfoot to subscribe to anti-Bigfoot groups on Facebook.
Not going to happen, right?
I'm not subscribing to something which I find absurd, primarily because that would dishonestly boost the number of people in that group and secondly because Facebook is not a source of reliable scientific information. If you have some evidence from those groups to present, go for it. I'll look it over. If you can convince me Bigfoot exists, THEN I'll join your fan club.
And I would like to challenge you to a serious reality check.
The whole notion of Bigfoot is just completely ludicrous; we all know full well that there is no fossil record of any large primate in the temperate regions since at least the last Ice Age, let alone one that resembles the mythical Bigfoot. There is no DNA evidence, no bodies, no remains at all, not even skeletal or in decomposition; that alone pretty much rules out its existence, given the required population size for such an animal to survive. Even extremely rare species on the brink of extinction, such as the Florida Black Bear for example, leave plenty of documented and verifiable specimen evidence - for Bigfoot, there is nothing at all.
In short, there is no scientifically credible evidence whatsoever for the existence of this species, there is not even any reason to assume that it exists in the first place, hence there is nothing to "disprove". The entire myth is build around old legends, hearsay, and fabricated videos/photos; we might as well postulate invisible pink unicorns, since they would be just as impossible to disprove.
Hunting Bigfoot might sure be a fun hobby, but it certainly does not belong on a science forum.
What makes you think people have not already looked at the videos and pictures purporting to show evidence for Bigfoot?Originally Posted by WVBIG
Flick, you misunderstood my reason for the challenge. The challenge was to show skeptics that we don't believe everything offered
Markus, the Patterson/Gimlin film has all but been proven aurhentic. Check out home
RedPanda, Everything I've mentioned on the subject seems to be news to the skeptics hereWhat makes you think people have not already looked at the videos and pictures purporting to show evidence for Bigfoot?
2-3 weeks ago, I issued another challenge here. The challenge was to find a "more logical" explanation for my Bigfoot sighting in 1997. There have been no replies
It is generally frowned upon in forums like this to make medical diagnoses based on the symptoms people describe.
I don't think anyone doubted that it was a film.
And from that link:
"So while this effort is taking longer than anticipated before, the work is progressing in a systematic manner and the documentation of method and effort is being accumulated."
Bill Munn doesn't seem to agree with you.
Look, here's the thing - to me the idea that there is such a thing as Bigfoot is an extraordinary claim, simply because we would not expect to find such a large primate in the habitat suggested, and given the fact that no authenticated remains or body parts have ever been found.
And you know the old adage - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Video footage or photos just don't cut it, I'm afraid. Most especially not in the day and age where professional editing software is available to the general public; it is just too easy to cook up something which might initially appear authentic. The believers of UFOs have the same problem, so have many science cranks who link to YouTube videos as "evidence" of their claims.
As far as I am concerned - and I am sure I am not alone in that opinion - the only valid "proof" of Bigfoot will be an actual specimen, dead or alive, independently examined, with the results peer-reviewed. That's how science works, and that is also why I will not join your site; it's a waste of time, because no matter who many "authentic" videos you put on, you won't convince me. On the other hand, if you can present a specimen, I'll be the first one to be excited.
WVBIG, show me the FOSSIL evidence for great apes in north America in teh last 2 million years, show me the fossil evidence of bipedal apes in North eastern Asia during the Ice Age. Show live captured specimens or recent skeletons.
As for the Patterson-Gimlin film: The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film and why ahve no other lovely filming of a specimen happened since?
And dont start with the buried under rock bunk again.
I LIVE IN BIG FOOT COUNTRY! *L*
I won't accept that challenge!
It's a great legend and the 9 hole Golf Course named Big Foot, in Willow Creek has freaking tiny greens that bite your ass!
However....I no more believe in Big Foot then I believe I can be 35 again.
I have also done film.
Editing floors are full of fun stuff..and ANYTHING can be edited.
Yes, my point exactly. Videos and photos just don't cut it in this case.
Smile...having been well here for 37 years, *chuckle*...I've seen all of the Big Foot Stuff..Yes, my point exactly. Videos and photos just don't cut it in this case.
and yes it is charming as a legend...and that is what it is.
Hope he doesn't get mad at me and break down my bedroom door! *L*
No it hasn't Steven.Markus, the Patterson/Gimlin film has all but been proven aurhentic. Check out home
That you think it does shows the difference between you and the scientifically minded at large.
We have been over that film in great detail here as well. Nothing about it was really convincing. There is no reliable evidence about how far the guy filming was from the "bigfoot", nor about even at what speed the film was shot at. There is no reliable inferences from the depth of the foot imprints. The testimony from the people involved doesn't even add up. Analysis of the "bigfoot" itself in terms of the gait, shape of the cranium, supposed muscle flexing, etc, etc. are all very sketchy and inconsistent indeed.
In short, all the supposed strong evidence is an exercise in wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
What are the specifics on this again? I'd venture that the most logical explanation for it is "guy in a suit".2-3 weeks ago, I issued another challenge here. The challenge was to find a "more logical" explanation for my Bigfoot sighting in 1997. There have been no replies
If you take what he says literally, then he is correct.No it hasn't Steven.
The film has been watched, analysed, refuted, debunked, ignored, repeatedly dragged up, repeatedly ridiculed, etc. etc.
But the film has never been proved authentic.
Therefore, the Patterson/Gimlin film has all but been proven authentic.
And you all STILL ignore my challenge to provide a "more logical" explanation for my 1997 sighting. Why? Maybe because you can't? Again, here are the circumstances of my sighting: My brother & I went Turkey hunting in the fall season. At the first location, there was no response to Turkey calls, so we decided to go to another area a few miles away. This is where I saw something about 6' tall, 250lbs & coal black, walk out of the woods on two legs, look around for maybe a minute & then turn around & walk back into the woods. There was no sun, so it couldn't have been a person in silhouette & nobody knew we were going to be there. IF on the off chance that a guy did get lucky & decide to pull a prank at the right place at the right time, why didn't he keep on doing it until he got some attention for it? I convinced myself for years that it was a bear because in 1997, I believed Bigfoots only lived in the Pacific Northwest. Not in West Virginia. If the P/G film is a fake, explain the muscle movement 14 years BEFORE stretch fur fabric. Explain why all of the claims of the people claiming to be the guy in the suit, have fallen apart. Explain why the rewards for the suit & proof that the film is a hoax, are both still unclaimed. Measurements of distance between Roger Patterson's tracks & the creature's tracks were taken right away. Specifics about the camera & film are known. A weight gauge was used on the creature tracks right away. You should check out a dvd called "Eyes In The Dark" by a man named Todd Partain. In his film, he used a technique possible in 1967 to make the suit. Hair glued to a guy wearing black thermal underwear & a gorilla headpiece. It's not even close to as realistic looking as the P/G film. Most people have only seen the film on a pc monitor or maybe a tv screen. I've seen it on a motion picture screen as part of "Bigfoot: Man Or Beast?" when I was 10 years old
Ah, the old "prove me wrong" argument. Sorry, the real world doesn't work like that.
How old were you? How long ago was this?My brother & I went Turkey hunting in the fall season.
How close was it? How do you know how tall it was? Did your brother see it?This is where I saw something about 6' tall
So you were primed to interpret what you saw as Big Foot?Most people have only seen the film on a pc monitor or maybe a tv screen. I've seen it on a motion picture screen as part of "Bigfoot: Man Or Beast?" when I was 10 years old
You do know how ridiculously unreliable eye-witnesses are, don't you?
I wouldn't my own eye witness account. I'm certainly not going to trust yours, given your obvious bias and the unbelievably dumb comments you have made here in the past.
Ok.
Here's my more logical explanation: you were mistaken.
Last edited by RedPanda; September 4th, 2013 at 05:03 PM.
On the balance of probabilities, and taking all other evidence into account, I think you are probably right.
But you believe enough of it to be more sure than not that some kind of Bigfoot exists?Flick, you misunderstood my reason for the challenge. The challenge was to show skeptics that we don't believe everything offered
huh?But you believe enough of it to be more sure than not that some kind of Bigfoot exists?Flick, you misunderstood my reason for the challenge. The challenge was to show skeptics that we don't believe everything offered
Shortened. "You believe it to be more certain than uncertain that some kind of Bigfoot exists?"huh?But you believe enough of it to be more sure than not that some kind of Bigfoot exists?Flick, you misunderstood my reason for the challenge. The challenge was to show skeptics that we don't believe everything offered
Basically, what Shlunka said.
Saying, "We don't accept all evidence offered" does not mean, "We are skeptical of Bigfoot." Rather, I take it as saying, "We only accept the most solid evidence of Bigfoot, but we still believe Bigfoot exists" which is still essentially, to me, the same as saying, "I don't believe in ALL the evidence of unicorns with which I am presented, only the best evidence. That is why I believe unicorns exist."
Sorry for my poor wording.
Eyewitness accounts are just as unreliable as video footage; I have no reason to believe anything you may or may not have seen.
So once again, the only thing that would convince anyone here is an actual specimen.
Btw, you haven't addressed any of our arguments yet. I suggest you start soon.
This was in 1997 when I was 31 years old & it was about 100 yards away. My height estimate is based on the fact that when my brother returned to the truck, he came out of the woods at the same point, whatever I saw did & my brother is 6' tall. If eyewitness reports are so unreliable, then we better let a hell of a lot of people out of prison who were convicted on eyewitness testimony. My "bias" as you call it, is based on 40 years of reading articles & books and watching documentaries on the subjectAh, the old "prove me wrong" argument. Sorry, the real world doesn't work like that.
How old were you? How long ago was this?My brother & I went Turkey hunting in the fall season.
How close was it? How do you know how tall it was? Did your brother see it?This is where I saw something about 6' tall
So you were primed to interpret what you saw as Big Foot?Most people have only seen the film on a pc monitor or maybe a tv screen. I've seen it on a motion picture screen as part of "Bigfoot: Man Or Beast?" when I was 10 years old
You do know how ridiculously unreliable eye-witnesses are, don't you?
I wouldn't my own eye witness account. I'm certainly not going to trust yours, given your obvious bias and the unbelievably dumb comments you have made here in the past.
Umm...I've replied to every single comment here. You all are the ones dodging argumentsEyewitness accounts are just as unreliable as video footage; I have no reason to believe anything you may or may not have seen.
So once again, the only thing that would convince anyone here is an actual specimen.
Btw, you haven't addressed any of our arguments yet. I suggest you start soon.
So you saw something the same size as your brother in the same place as you saw your brother. Hmmm.... And your brother didn't see anything. Hmmm....
Do people in your country get convicted only on eyewitness testimony? You might want to consider moving to somewhere with a working justice system.If eyewitness reports are so unreliable, then we better let a hell of a lot of people out of prison who were convicted on eyewitness testimony.
Exactly.My "bias" as you call it, is based on 40 years of reading articles & books and watching documentaries on the subject
Eye-witness reports can be pretty unreliable.
(cf. Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory : Nature News & Comment)
Allow me to summarize what kind of evidence might convince a skeptic:I am looking forward to your sources (amateur videos and pictures, forums, social media, etc. do not count).
- DNA evidence, a body (or its remains, either skeletal or in decomposition).
- If condition 1 is met, then present the actual specimen, dead or alive, independently examined, with the results peer-reviewed.
- If condition 2 is met, then present those articles and books that discuss the results of the findings in condition 1.
Anyone who has served on a jury will tell you how unreliable eye witness testimony is.
Psychology History
Okay. Lets look at all the evidence AGAINST the existence of Bigfoot:Basically, what Shlunka said.
Saying, "We don't accept all evidence offered" does not mean, "We are skeptical of Bigfoot." Rather, I take it as saying, "We only accept the most solid evidence of Bigfoot, but we still believe Bigfoot exists" which is still essentially, to me, the same as saying, "I don't believe in ALL the evidence of unicorns with which I am presented, only the best evidence. That is why I believe unicorns exist."
Sorry for my poor wording.
1)No remains have ever been found: That's not necessarily true. I refer you back to the Lloyd Pye lecture entitled "Everything You Know Is Wrong" He makes a pretty convincing argument that the remains of so-called human ancestors are actually the remains of bipedal apes. He points to the thickness of the bones as an indication of the strength of an ape, rather than a human. He also points to the shape of the jaw & that if evolution progressed at an even rate, there would have to be about 30 links between the alleged last known link & us. Not a single missing link. And last. Lets not forget the primate fossil that was found a few years ago in a private collection.
2)Not enough food sources in North America for a breeding population of large primates:"The North American Ape Project" directed by Dr. Jeff Meldrum has determined there are enough food sources. Did I miss anything?
This Lloyd Pie:
Not exactly a reliable source of information then. How about some peer-reviewed data?
Sorry, but "You were mistaken" doesn't cut it. I saw something. Please elaborate as to what you think I sawOk.
Here's my more logical explanation: you were mistaken.
This is a science forum. The best answer is "unknown". Get over it.
[QUOTE=WVBIG;457085]Sorry, but "You were mistaken" doesn't cut it. I saw something.Of course it doesn't "cut it" for you - you were the one that was mistaken.
To elaborate: what you saw wasn't bigfoot.
So, you think you are infallible; unable to make a mistake.
Interesting....
Surely if people can find bones from million year old ancestors in Eastern Africa they can find physical evidence of big foot living in America. So WVBIG, the next time you see one, get some physical evidence--you know like a tool, bits of hair, a log from one of their bowel movements, a cave painting, midden etc. and carefully record as much as you can about the finding. I told my wife if I ever saw one in the depths of the Cascades, I'd be infamous for killing one and bringing it in for some indisputable proof. People's minds make all sorts of crazy finding patterns out of stuff that's not really there--a well evolved safety mechanism to err on false positives of dangerous things, rather than false negatives.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 2nd, 2013 at 08:31 PM.
I would expect the quality of photographic images to improve as technology evolves but there still isn't a good clear shot of Bigfoot. This should coincide with advancements in weaponry, yet no one can shoot one. Why can't the damn thing be photographed or shot? Could it be because that would take all the fun out of it?
Really ? I was looking for answers to the following, to start with :
1. Why is there no fossil record of any primate species in the temperate regions, let alone Bigfoot
2. Why is there no DNA evidence
3. Why are there no bodies, or even body parts
4. Why are there no skeletal remains
5. Why was no live specimen ever caught and independently examined ( and the findings peer-reviewed )
You may have replied to comments, but not to the arguments presented. Unless I am going blind, at which case all you need to do is point out the post # where you addressed these points...
Huh ?! Your stories about what you might or might not have seen is not an "argument", in so far as the scientific method goes; so there was nothing for us to "dodge" in the first place.You all are the ones dodging arguments
Yes it is. If you think otherwise, please cite peer-reviewed sources which describe the existence of such remains.That's not necessarily true.
That's not really an argument that anyone here has brought up, nor one I would agree with. There are enough food sources, the problem is rather that availing of those food sources would leave behind empirical evidence of the existence of the predator, which we do not find.Not enough food sources in North America for a breeding population of large primates
Some have speculated that the lack of evidence is explained by the fact that it is an interdimensional being that slips in and out of dimensions.
(cf. Bigfoot - RationalWiki)
Well it certainly seems to like to slip into the Pacific Northwest! *laughing*
Some have speculated that the lack of evidence is explained by the fact that it is an interdimensional being that slips in and out of dimensions.
(cf. Bigfoot - RationalWiki)
I do have to chuckle at the word "slipping" for such a large "creature".
This is the same attitude as UFO nuts: see something that can't be identified and scream "Aliens!".
No, it is just something that can't be identified. There is no reason to assume it is aliens (or bigfoot); it is just a leap of imagination based on your personal belief. I assume if a UFO nut had had the same experience as you, they would be equally convinced they saw ET.
After living in Big Foot Country for 36 years.....I have yet to see him.This is the same attitude as UFO nuts: see something that can't be identified and scream "Aliens!".
No, it is just something that can't be identified. There is no reason to assume it is aliens (or bigfoot); it is just a leap of imagination based on your personal belief. I assume if a UFO nut had had the same experience as you, they would be equally convinced they saw ET.
Is it my breath? Do I not bathe? Does he just not like my "neck of the woods"?
I am desolate!
How is "Unknown" a logical explanation?This is a science forum. The best answer is "unknown". Get over it.
Things in the sky can look very different, depending on how the light is hitting them. A few years ago, I looked up in the sky & saw what appeared to be a large silver ball. But after a bit, it got to a point where the light hit it at a different angle and I could see it was just an airplane. The only things about the UFO/alien phenomenon that makes me consider the possibility, is a couple of very old paintings with spaceships in the skyThis is the same attitude as UFO nuts: see something that can't be identified and scream "Aliens!".
No, it is just something that can't be identified. There is no reason to assume it is aliens (or bigfoot); it is just a leap of imagination based on your personal belief. I assume if a UFO nut had had the same experience as you, they would be equally convinced they saw ET.
It is a logical conclusion, the only logical conclusion, based on the facts.
Aliens, time travellers, the Ghost of Christmas Past, and bigfoot all have equally little supporting evidence.
Last edited by Strange; September 3rd, 2013 at 05:16 PM. Reason: fixed quote
It was a bear.
It was a bear in a monkey suit.It was a bear.
It was a black man.It was a bear in a monkey suit.
They can be very rare in certain parts of America.
Is West Virginia America’s Most Racist State?
It is a logical conclusion, the only logical conclusion, based on the facts.How is "Unknown" a logical explanation?
Aliens, time travellers, the Ghost of Christmas Past, and bigfoot all have equally little supporting evidence.[/QUOTE]
But it was something tangible. "You were mistaken" isn't a tangible object. Therefore, you're wrong
Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legsIt was a bear.
Did you touch it then?
If not, how do you know it was tangible?
Even if it was something real, it is still "unknown". You have absolutely no rational basis to leap from "unknown" to "Womble", "Yeti", "Martian" of any other specific identification (after all, that is what "unknown" means).
Sure they can. There was a black bear (small one) who took a quick trip around the Yosemite Valley parking lot (the Sunnyside campground) once a day until the park rangers moved it. He'd stand up on his rear legs to look in car windows and see if there was anything tasty in them. When looking at his upper body between the cars he seemed like he could turn around quite smoothly. Indeed he was surprisingly human in his gait - using his forelegs for support when stepping over the curb, standing on his toes to look in taller vehicles. I can easily see someone mistaking him for human if it were in a darker forest.
Depending on what part of West Virginia he's from and if he doesn't get out much, that could explain it!It was a black man.It was a bear in a monkey suit.
They can be very rare in certain parts of America.
Is West Virginia America’s Most Racist State?
I think it is pretty clear: it was an alien in an environment suit.
It makes far more sense than bigfoot.
"Not enough food sources in North America for a breeding population of large primates"
They don't eat Earth food - they eat food from their spaceship.
"there is no fossil record of any large primate in the temperate regions since at least the last Ice Age"
They don't come from Earth.
"There is no DNA evidence, no bodies, no remains at all, not even skeletal or in decomposition"
Their bodies are collected by their fellow aliens - sterilising any possible evidence.
"Why was no live specimen ever caught and independently examined"
Aliens have advanced stealth technology built into their brown fibre covered environment suits.
"Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legs."
Aliens can.
"Aliens" is a far more logical explanation than bigfoot.
But something tells me that you don't want it to be aliens.
Description
Bigfoot is described in reports as a large hairy ape-like creature, in a range of 2–3 m (6.6-9.8 ft) tall, weighing in excess of 500 pounds (230 kg), and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair.[5][10] Purported witnesses have described large eyes, a pronounced brow ridge, and a large, low-set forehead; the top of the head has been described as rounded and crested, similar to the sagittal crest of the male gorilla. Bigfoot is commonly reported to have a strong, unpleasant smell by those who claim to have encountered it.[11] The enormous footprints for which it is named have been as large as 24 inches (60 cm) long and 8 inches (20 cm) wide.[10] While most casts have five toes — like all known apes — some casts of alleged Bigfoot tracks have had numbers ranging from two to six.[12] Some have also contained claw marks, making it likely that a portion came from known animals such as bears, which have five toes and claws.[13][14] Proponents claim that Bigfoot is omnivorous and mainly nocturnal.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot
Must have been the teen version at six feet tall!
I can't help but notice the way you completely ignored post #39...
Sorry Markus, but this was directed to?????
The OP. Sorry if that wasn't clear...
Thank you, sir.The OP. Sorry if that wasn't clear...
Based on what source are you making this assertion?Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legsIt was a bear.
They are quadripedalBased on what source are you making this assertion?Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legsIt was a bear.
Make a joke when I make a point
They are also bipedal. Get on Youtube; there are plenty of videos of bears walking around, doing 180's etc. There's even a bear with three legs who walks on his hind legs most of the time without much fuss.
So you are just making an unfounded assertion based on their typical mode of travel rather then on actual information.They are quadripedalBased on what source are you making this assertion?Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legsIt was a bear.
What reliable source are you basing the assertion that they can not make a 180 degree torso rotation?
I didn't make a joke.Make a joke when I make a point
Aliens fits better than bigfoot.
But then, as I said, "something tells me that you don't want it to be aliens".
Got any evidence against it being aliens?
Wait. Your bigfoot sighting was at such a distance that the reason you think it was not a bear is because of how it turned around? And you think is was BIGFOOT? Doesn't take much to convince you, does it?They are quadripedalBased on what source are you making this assertion?Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legsIt was a bear.
I've seen two videos on youtube of bears walking on two legs, but none of bears turning 180 degrees on two legs. They are considered quadrapedsThey are also bipedal. Get on Youtube; there are plenty of videos of bears walking around, doing 180's etc. There's even a bear with three legs who walks on his hind legs most of the time without much fuss.
Who said anything about a torso rotation? This thing turned it's whole body 180 degrees as smoothly as a personSo you are just making an unfounded assertion based on their typical mode of travel rather then on actual information.They are quadripedalBased on what source are you making this assertion?Bears can't make a smooth 180 degree turn while on their back legsIt was a bear.
What reliable source are you basing the assertion that they can not make a 180 degree torso rotation?
Bears can easily turn 180 degrees on two legs. Sloth bears, most notably. Bears FIGHT each other on two feet. They can also throw rocks, which is another thing I have heard attributed to bigfoot outside of this forum.I've seen two videos on youtube of bears walking on two legs, but none of bears turning 180 degrees on two legs. They are considered quadrapedsThey are also bipedal. Get on Youtube; there are plenty of videos of bears walking around, doing 180's etc. There's even a bear with three legs who walks on his hind legs most of the time without much fuss.
Oh well, that proves it then.
I have never seen a video on YooToob of someone standing on one leg so it must be impossible.
I saw it happen in a parking lot in Yosemite less than 50 feet from me in the broad daylight. They are quite capable of that.
So Occam's Razor - bigfoot or a bear? Bear wins.
Here's a video of a bear turning around while on two legs. Check the 22 second mark; he turns 180 then turns back and continues walking.
Trainer taking a Bear for a walk, on 2 legs - YouTube
You are the one that is basing your entire claim on an assertion that since you have not seen it it CANT be a bear. You have been told it is otherwise yet you continue to claim it wasnt a bear.
Provide evidence that your assertion is not bull.
Aliens.
So - that's 2 "more logical" explanations that I have provided.
And since you have failed to show that they are either not logical or not possible, the only reason to continue to claim it was bigfoot is your own personal bias.
It seems cognitive dissonance has a strong grip on you.
but no known source to prove nookie!Bears can easily turn 180 degrees on two legs. Sloth bears, most notably. Bears FIGHT each other on two feet. They can also throw rocks, which is another thing I have heard attributed to bigfoot outside of this forum.I've seen two videos on youtube of bears walking on two legs, but none of bears turning 180 degrees on two legs. They are considered quadrapedsThey are also bipedal. Get on Youtube; there are plenty of videos of bears walking around, doing 180's etc. There's even a bear with three legs who walks on his hind legs most of the time without much fuss.
Sorry Big Foot to me is really funny, literally living in Big Foot Country since 1977 and husband is 4th generation...we don't have Big Foot in Hawai'i...we just have Madame Pele!
However, she is a rock and roller!
If you have ever been privy to a live wild bear.....you know it can walk on it's hind legs.......perfectly fine.
Given the level of evidence provided by WVBIG (including parodies and unverified, probably false, DNA data) this is pretty good evidence it was just a bear: Yogi Bear Home Sweet Jellystone - YouTube
You are a bad bad boy!
But that was funny
1)I never said bears can't turn 180 degrees on two legs. I said they can't do it smoothly like people can. 2)Bears can't throw rocks. There is one Google result where a man in Turkey claims a bear threw a rock at him & one where a camper heard something grunt outside his tent that threw rocks. I also found one result that said for bears to be able to throw rocks, they would have to have oposable thumbsBears can easily turn 180 degrees on two legs. Sloth bears, most notably. Bears FIGHT each other on two feet. They can also throw rocks, which is another thing I have heard attributed to bigfoot outside of this forum.I've seen two videos on youtube of bears walking on two legs, but none of bears turning 180 degrees on two legs. They are considered quadrapedsThey are also bipedal. Get on Youtube; there are plenty of videos of bears walking around, doing 180's etc. There's even a bear with three legs who walks on his hind legs most of the time without much fuss.
Why can't you get it into your head that none of this can in any way be considered empirical evidence ? If you claim the existence of a hitherto unknown primate, then the only acceptable evidence is a specimen, dead or alive. Your ramblings about bears turning / not turning, being able / not being able to throw stones, and what you may or may not have seen on some camping trip, does not constitute empirical evidence. You will not be able to convince anyone here or anywhere else with this. So why are you wasting your own and our time ? Is this some kind of ego trip, or something ?
A serious reality check is in order, mate - this is a science forum, not a personal blog for deluded ramblings about mythical hear-say beasts. Either cite us some real scientific evidence, or take it elsewhere. The mere fact that no poster on here agrees with anything you have stated thus far ought to give you a hint as to the suitability of this topic to a science forum; your assertions and claims are full of personal beliefs and convictions, yet sadly completely devoid of any science.
He has already intimated that he is unable to accept the possibility that he is wrong.
Anyway - the figure in the film is obviously an alien.
Back to the original post for a moment, our members (especially our zoological ones) have joined such groups on facebook, as well as other cryptozoology groups, and just as with the anti-vax and anti-gmo crowds we just end up getting banned from all these groups for pointing out the flaws in their assumptions. So, I suppose my challenge to WVBIG would be to show me such a group/page on facebook that WVBIG can guarantee our members wouldn't be banned from for pointing out why the stuff they believe to be "evidence" actually isn't and trying to respectfully walk them through the logic of it all...
What logic ? Bigfoot, like all cryptozoology, ufology etc etc is based on hear-say and personal beliefs. There is no logic to be found anywhere, until such time when someone can produce a specimen that can be scientifically examined, and the findings peer-reviewed. Only then can one lead a logical discussion.
They can turn smoothly. I have seen it in person, and I posted a link to a video that shows a bear turning 180 smoothly.
Here's a video of a polar bear throwing a rock at its enclosure and breaking the glass:2)Bears can't throw rocks. There is one Google result where a man in Turkey claims a bear threw a rock at him & one where a camper heard something grunt outside his tent that threw rocks. I also found one result that said for bears to be able to throw rocks, they would have to have oposable thumbs
Polar Bear Throws A Rock Breaking Window at the Zoo - YouTube
The problem I have with the bigfoot 'theory' is...where are they? lol I mean, at this point, after decades or is it longer, of 'sightings,' mere mating stats alone...we should be bumping into these 'creatures' all over the place. And what are they? It's just silly. But I do believe in fairies.
It was a bear in a monkey suit.OK...it's an alien bear in a monkey suit
Hmmm....you could be right.It was a bear in a monkey suit.OK...it's an alien bear in a monkey suit
More likely than bigfoot, anyway.
He has already intimated that he is unable to accept the possibility that he is wrong.
Anyway - the figure in the film is obviously an alien.
Damn!! I am going to have to talk to my costumer! They got it wrong....hairy...NOT AIRY!!! Sheeesh
Big Foot must wear special condoms. Never have heard any evidence of any Little Feet.The problem I have with the bigfoot 'theory' is...where are they? lol I mean, at this point, after decades or is it longer, of 'sightings,' mere mating stats alone...we should be bumping into these 'creatures' all over the place. And what are they? It's just silly. But I do believe in fairies.
It is because they have been brain-washed by Hollywood (with the exception of Robot Monster).
Aliens look much more like this: http://www.badmovies.org/movies/robo...otmonster1.jpg
Last edited by RedPanda; September 6th, 2013 at 04:54 AM.
your pic is broken and I was being facetious...It is because they have been brain-washed by Hollywood (with the exception of Robot Monster).
Aliens look much more like this:
hairy......er airy!! *L*
It's ok Red Panda!! *patting you head*....
you are both interesting and have a sense of humor......
Try this link: http://www.badmovies.org/movies/robo...otmonster1.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/groups/CEO.ECBR/ , https://www.facebook.com/groups/129993440380031/ , https://www.facebook.com/groups/145963082102475/ , https://www.facebook.com/groups/148613375174333/ , https://www.facebook.com/groups/263889660384363/ , https://www.facebook.com/groups/squatchunlimited/ , https://www.facebook.com/groups/305767999481205/
It shoved it while under water. Where is the link to the bear turning 180 degrees smoothly?They can turn smoothly. I have seen it in person, and I posted a link to a video that shows a bear turning 180 smoothly.
Here's a video of a polar bear throwing a rock at its enclosure and breaking the glass:2)Bears can't throw rocks. There is one Google result where a man in Turkey claims a bear threw a rock at him & one where a camper heard something grunt outside his tent that threw rocks. I also found one result that said for bears to be able to throw rocks, they would have to have oposable thumbs
Polar Bear Throws A Rock Breaking Window at the Zoo - YouTube
Why can't you get it into YOUR head that I'm not saying any or even all of these things combined, prove the existence of Bigfoot. I'm merely trying to get more scientists interested enough to investigate it thoroughly & correctly. The handful who have & now consider the existence of Bigfoot to be a possibility, have been ridiculed by the rest of youWhy can't you get it into your head that none of this can in any way be considered empirical evidence ? If you claim the existence of a hitherto unknown primate, then the only acceptable evidence is a specimen, dead or alive. Your ramblings about bears turning / not turning, being able / not being able to throw stones, and what you may or may not have seen on some camping trip, does not constitute empirical evidence. You will not be able to convince anyone here or anywhere else with this. So why are you wasting your own and our time ? Is this some kind of ego trip, or something ?
A serious reality check is in order, mate - this is a science forum, not a personal blog for deluded ramblings about mythical hear-say beasts. Either cite us some real scientific evidence, or take it elsewhere. The mere fact that no poster on here agrees with anything you have stated thus far ought to give you a hint as to the suitability of this topic to a science forum; your assertions and claims are full of personal beliefs and convictions, yet sadly completely devoid of any science.
There goes your theory about them not being able to pick up rocks . . . .
Here's another picture of a bear holding a rock.
Post 73.Where is the link to the bear turning 180 degrees smoothly?
Come to think of it, I do have an episode of the 1970's tv series "Grizzly Adams" where Grizzly Adams' pet bear threw a stick, but it only went a couple feet & started losing altitude immediatelyThere goes your theory about them not being able to pick up rocks . . . .
Here's another picture of a bear holding a rock.
Post 73.Where is the link to the bear turning 180 degrees smoothly?
lmao!! Seriously...where is big foot's "extended family?" This thread is more hilarious than the notion of "big foot."Big Foot must wear special condoms. Never have heard any evidence of any Little Feet.The problem I have with the bigfoot 'theory' is...where are they? lol I mean, at this point, after decades or is it longer, of 'sightings,' mere mating stats alone...we should be bumping into these 'creatures' all over the place. And what are they? It's just silly. But I do believe in fairies.
| « On conservation of energy. | E = mc^2 » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
216Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
