We need to come to a conclusion on Bigfoot

a reply to: Phage

So what we can conclude is you actually have no alternative argument that disproves the phenomena and your denial is simply based upon bias.

You jumped into the discussion from your safe space on the side line which means you take on your buddy's debt. Your debt is to validate his claim of denial based upon evidence the two of you can put forward that counters the current body of evidence that proves the phenomena is real.

Waiting....

Don't fade too quickly.

a reply to: 1point92AU

You misstate my position, unless you can show a single example of me stating that bigfoots do not exist.

Still, I would fully consider evidence that they do.

a reply to: Phage

You chimed in on a conversation so by default you assume his same position. Therefore you assume his responsibility.

State the sources you've researched and read that prove the phenomena is not real.

Once you do I am going to give you the sources that prove they do. It's that simple.

My contention is neither of you are well read on the topic and are, instead, products of the highly successful social engineering programs that have been in place since before the US was even a country. Currently run by Hollywood and the mainstream media.

a reply to: 1point92AU

State the sources you've researched and read that prove the phenomena is not real.

Alas, I have no evidence that bigfoots do not exist.

Nor do I have evidence that unicorns do not exist.

a reply to: Phage

Do you like to read books? Meaning, if I give you the names of 3 books to read are you actually going to read them or will you not? They document the physical evidence collected along with observational conclusions based on these 2 individual's expertise in the fields of wildlife biology and anatomy and anthropology.

Full disclosure...these books, while interesting, do get into the detail of the science that might not make for the most exciting of reading. I, however, appreciated the detail these individuals go into as it further validates their credibility and ability to come to the conclusions they did.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I do read books. But can't you provide a summary and links to the actual lab results?

I'm sorry, I must confess that I don't put a lot of stock in eyewitness testimony without corroborating evidence. On the whole, people don't do so well in the way of providing unbiased reports. I have personal experience here.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 1point92AU

I do read books. But can't you provide a summary and links to the actual lab results?

The books I am referring to do not have any summary's other than very basic comments like "proof of an upright hominid" type comments. The actual books themselves go into the extreme detail of how these degreed professionals arrived at their conclusions.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum - is a Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and a Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. His book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" is a good read but as I warned previously can get very dry when he gets into the detailed science which proves his observations.

Dr. John Bindernagle - was (recently deceased) a wildlife biologist who wrote a few different books on the topic but by far his best (and most current) work is "The Discovery of the Sasquatch". This is an excellent read and is not dry in the slightest. There are plenty of videos of both Bindernagle and Meldrum. They aren't the run of the mill crack pot we so frequently see on the made for T.V. Bigfoot shows, which, are INTENTIONALLY produced in such as manner so as to not bring credibility to the subject. Only to be laughed at and deservedly so.

I'm sorry, I must confess that I don't put a lot of stock in eyewitness testimony without corroborating evidence. On the whole, people don't do so well in the way of providing unbiased reports. I have personal experience here.

I agree with you but for me eyewitness testimony is situational. For example if my grandfather were to tell me a story of something he experienced first hand I would without hesitation believe every word of what he said. Because I know him to be a highly intelligent, brutally honest, and not a joking man whose ever been prone to hyperbole. His word is gold. Period.

However, if I were to hear the testimony of a crack head whose clearly under the influence of some drug which is known to cause hallucinations then my better half of critical thinking is going to take that into account along with their testimony.

I've used examples in other threads about eyewitness testimony of active duty fighter pilots who have witnessed aerial phenomena and captured in on video yet people want to discount them and say they are lying. That's ridiculous. They along with 5 other active duty fighter pilots met with members of Congress to discuss their eyewitness testimony. They have no reason to lie. It would only hurt and hinder their credibility with their current profession and their post military path. Yet, they are all still active duty fighter pilots in active fighter squadrons so clearly the US Navy and their superiors know them all to be very sane, capable pilots.

Meaning that simply because someone provides eyewitness testimony does not discredit the information they are relaying simply because it was witnessed. We have to be reasonable when considering any information.

This document is very interesting to read and goes into extreme detail to understand and explain what was found through BIOTIC TAPHONOMY SIGNATURE ANALYSIS, which to date has yet to be disproven by any other scientists.
sasquatchgenomeproject.org...

This link is extensive. Very extensive and done by Dr. Melba Ketchum.
sasquatchgenomeproject.org...

There are dissenting opinions with the peer reviews with one supporting peer review. There was definitely politics at play here. None the less it is an exhaustive study on DNA testing over a period of 5 years. Worth time and effort to understand these scientists aren't trying to hoax anything.

Back to the eyewitness testimony discussion and a minor point on that.

There is a 38 km stretch located in British Columbia between Mount Currie, BC and D'Arcy, BC where you could ask any of the locals about a Sasquatch sighting and nearly all of them will have an eyewitness account. Some of the most well known hunting outfits in the world are located in this area and regularly take out game hunters from all over the world. Hunting trips that cost $50,000 + so it is a serious business. These are people who have spent their lives hunting deer, elk, caribou, mountain sheep, big horn sheep, grizzly bear, mountain lion, etc. 30, 40, 50 + years in the area and nearly all have multiple accounts of events surrounding Sasquatch.

First Nations people all have stories as well. People who've lived in these lands for generations long before the evil white European settlers invaded their lands. 400+ names for Sasquatch exist in the First Nations tribes across the US. They've existed for centuries in their folklore. As real. Not mythical.

While I enjoy an engaging story as much as the next person I, too, tend to require some level of physical evidence to support a story. So in that respect we can agree. But there exists a current body of physical evidence that points to the existence of an upright hominin species as yet to be classified by the mainstream scientific community.

a reply to: 1point92AU

The books I am referring to do not have any summary's other than very basic comments like "proof of an upright hominid" type comments.

I requested your summary.

This document is very interesting to read and goes into extreme detail

Unfortunetaly it doesn't seem to address any physical evidence other than chewed bones.

This link is extensive. Very extensive and done by Dr. Melba Ketchum.

Unforturneatly, even the most avid Sasquatch hunters acknowlege that Kethcum can't tell a bigfoot from a hole in the ground. Her DNA "analysis", isn't.

a reply to: Phage

So predictable and lazy. Keep fading.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I read your sources. And others.
Is that lazy?

a reply to: Phage

You know nothing of the sources other than your bias. If you don't read the data that supports a conclusion then you only support your bias. That's called being lazy. But I get it man...you don't have much energy.

a reply to: 1point92AU

You know nothing of the sources other than your bias.

I read your sources.

.you don't have much energy.

How very Trumpian.

a reply to: Phage

You've proved you're lazy and can't rationalize because you are biased. Biased because you and your buddy are products of the highly effective social engineering programs. I give you the evidence you requested and you want someone to chew your food for you too. That's next level lazy.

Keep fading.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Phage

You've proved you're lazy and can't rationalize because you are biased. Biased because you and your buddy are products of the highly effective social engineering programs. I give you the evidence you requested and you want someone to chew your food for you too. That's next level lazy.

Keep fading.

Who is my "buddy?"

You did provide sources, finally. I pointed out what your sources are worth.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Phage

You've proved you're lazy and can't rationalize because you are biased. Biased because you and your buddy are products of the highly effective social engineering programs. I give you the evidence you requested and you want someone to chew your food for you too. That's next level lazy.

Keep fading.

Who is my "buddy?"

You did provide sources, finally. I pointed out what your sources are worth.

You pointed out you are lazy by requesting "summaries" of detailed scientific research. You cannot dispute Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Bindernagle's research because you are too lazy to actually do the required reading. Instead you only proved my point of being part of the sheep herd I referenced early on. Biased based on social engineering. You even prove with your very own words you are part of the sheep herd.

You are literally a lazy person. Stay controlled! But not for long for you are fading.

I know this sounds kind of gay and maybe even crosses into the realm of bestiality. But I wonder what are the mating calls of a big foot. When he busted a nut. Did ya'll hear like a howl or a loud grunt. It still makes me laugh that he left his jizz right on your property.

originally posted by: Nemox42
I know this sounds kind of gay and maybe even crosses into the realm of bestiality. But I wonder what are the mating calls of a big foot. When he busted a nut. Did ya'll hear like a howl or a loud grunt. It still makes me laugh that he left his jizz right on your property.

I think your mom would know the answer to your deep thought questions. Give her a try. Bigfoot sure did.

One particular fact that really is at odds with statistical proof of the existence of BF, is the complete absence of bones or skeletal remains.

Every creature on this planet has been in some kind of peril, be it natural death, murder, eaten or catastrophic accident, where their bones (or some body part) have been found.

So, until a certified BF bone is sitting in a public, scientific sanctioned collection.... No bone, No BF.

originally posted by: charlyv
One particular fact that really is at odds with statistical proof of the existence of BF, is the complete absence of bones or skeletal remains.

Every creature on this planet has been in some kind of peril, be it natural death, murder, eaten or catastrophic accident, where their bones (or some body part) have been found.

So, until a certified BF bone is sitting in a public, scientific sanctioned collection.... No bone, No BF.

I’m with you on this. Dead things leave bones... decaying corpses. For me to believe with any plausibility that Big Foot exists... there has to be some relatively intact remains to support the case for its existence.

I think the appropriate question would be why do some bigfoot seem to vanish or enter the earth or even communicate telepathically with some witnesses.

This thing belongs to the phantom menagerie with dogmen black cats etc.