Bigfoot can not exist today I am sorry but science cannot support it.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Aren't there some evidence to un-naturally large native american tribes? (like, 8 feet or so)

It's probably just a hoax, but I do remember seeing a site claiming to document such with preserved skeletons. Just a thought, perhaps there is evidence to it, and we wrote it off as something else.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 

First off your OP is premised on ''Hard Science'' not ''Soft Science'' which the latter certainly indicates there is a large bipedal something or other running around. You also neglect to factor in it's setience and unwillingness to be found. It isn't like stumbling over a Deer. Thes things actively refuse contact with us unless it's accidental or on their terms.

Hard Science-
This will be changing shortly with the release of Dr.Melba Ketchums peer reviewed DNA study....over 200 samples from North America.
www.facebook.com...


You are also quite incorrect about them not being found in the fossil record, we've apparently found plenty then fell on our faces in rigorously testing them.[yes this sourse sucks, but it's comprehensive]
s8int.com...

I also think you're going to have a brilliant career in whatever scientific modality you choose, with the caveat that
innovative thinking may not be your strength....don't let that happen! Factor in everything, throwing out what isn't applicable.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Who am I to believe science or my lying eyes?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


I will start by saying I dont necessarily fall on either side of this argument. I simply dont know. That said, I will refute some of your points.

1)Many new fossils are discovered all the time. Not having fossils or remains IN NO WAY proves it doesnt exist.

2)The rate of growth argument is irrelevant unless you cant concisely say what the lifespan of such a creature would be. The longer the life span, the less growth is necessary. You also cannot prove or disprove population growth with said species, until you have a general idea of what the population is.

3)You are flat out wrong on this. In the US, and Canada, there is an AMAZING amount of wilderness. If you dont think so, come visit me in oregon. Ill drop you off in the Mt. Hood National Forest. You will never find your way out.

4)Lack of evidence, such as pictures, is not proof of lack of existence. Furthermore, drones and aerial surveillance does not work to well in forested areas.

5)Again, you are wrong on this one.

6)Again, new fossils are discovered all the time.

7)So few predators would actually give merit to the idea that no bones are found. If it has few predators, they likely arent killed very often.

8)There is an unlimited food supply, plant and animal, in the forests of this nation. UNLIMITED. Food would never be an issue for such an animal.

9)Any guess on lifespan is nothing but conjecture on your part, and cannot be considered accurate, especially when you claim you are approaching this purely from a scientific POV.


Dozens of new mammals are discovered every year, so no, it isnt safe to assume that there are no unknown mammals.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
First of all I am a Sasquatch so I find this thread offensive! Seriously though, I spent the majority of my younger days playing in the woods. I am half Native American and have been taught to track and identify animals (and people) by my grandfather. I have spent months in the Canadian and Wyoming wild lands and I know what a bear, deer, elk. moose, man, and many other creatures look and sound like.

All this being said I have CLEARLY seen Sasquatch (s) 3 times in my life and I have heard them probably twice as many times. When I say clearly I am talking 200 ft or less with no obstruction. Unfortunately twice were in the late 70's early eighties and once in the 90's. I did not have a cell phone, camera or video recorder available at these times.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I feel as if though I can explain thoroughly enough each and every point that you have made thus far about the nonexistence of a bipedal, upright walking ape currently residing in the Pacific Northwest.

1. From the evidence we have collected, Bigfoot has existed for quite a while, and that's very evident from the Native Americans and the older tribes that have stories dating back thousands of years who have told tales of upright creatures and 'Wild Men' or 'Hairy Men.' Also, we didn't have the technology to examine bodies and bones back in the past, and you need to remember that Sasquatch are very well when it comes to hiding. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if other Sasquatch would take the body of another Sasquatch (possibly a family member) and either A) bury them somewhere else or B) take them to a different place where the bodies couldn't be found. This may not be the case, ultimately, but it is certainly a possibility.

2. I do not believe (not have I ever believed) that we are witnessing the extinction of a undocumented species nor are their number declining rapidly. Sasquatch (as mentioned above, and will be mentioned several times) is very good when it comes to hiding and cloaking itself in the wilderness. That's why we don't see them very often. There are multiple videos on YouTube that, while some appear to be very identifiable hoaxes, show a Sasquatch hiding behind a tree and sometimes the cameraman doesn't even know that he is in the process of filming a Sasquatch.

3. I have already discussed this so many times on previous forums that it's almost unbearable for me to speak out about it yet again. I have met a few hunters who have seen the creature and a ton who told me what they would do in that situation. On a first note, the hunters who have seen one (and this goes for all hunters I have met) say they would rather not shoot a Sasquatch just because of how murderous it would seem and how unique it would be to see one. Also, hunters more than likely rarely come across Sasquatch, cause yet again, they are very good at hiding. What would you do (as a human, naturally) if you saw a bear. I know that I would sure hide behind tree and not make a peep the entire time and not make myself known. It wouldn't surprise me if Sasquatch did the same. Also

4. When it comes to sightings, I'm not sure if I could get a good photo due to the heat of the moment. If I was a Sasquatch and wouldn't want to be bothered, I'd leave at the first sign of a human. Secondly, all humans are usually too shocked or surprised too pull out a camera. Also, they've seem to have adapted to trail cams and the use of them. We are pests to them when it comes to finding evidence, and I'm sure they're not as dumb as everyone thinks.

5. Do I even need to discuss? I'll just bring up a few points and then move onto the next point. We have not taken up as much land as you think. No, not even a single sliver compared to the entire forest. The forests across North America stretch as far as the eye can see. Take any of the areas in between Lewis County, Skamania, and even Skookum Meadows. It's all forest.

6. I've already mentioned about the body hypothesis on my first point, so I won't explain it again. However, when it comes to bones, there are several valid theories of why we never find anything. First and foremost, the acidic and not so forgiving forest floor of the Pacific Northwest. Ever seen the video on YouTube where they leave a fresh body out to see how it disintegrates over a period of time? It completely disappears due to maggots (bones and all) and other parts of the first floor. I probably need not explain more. Ah, but we have had hair, and DNA evidence supposedly, does that tighten the hole any more?

7. This relates to the body subject. No need to explain here as it seems it's just going back to the matter of bones and a skeleton.

8. More than likely, they're omnivore, and they have a plethora of different option to choose from. Set me with a set of hunting and survival skills, and watch me live out in the forest. Of course, a Bigfoot is well adapted for this environment, so that's very self explanatory.

9. How does this prove that the creature does not exist?I'm legitimately confused. So what if it lives for 5 minutes? Doesn't mean it does not exist.

Other Reasons

1. I don't think everyone can either be lying or misidentifying what they're seeing. That's saying tens of thousands of people are either lying or seeing things.
2. We have DNA evidence. Could that DNA be contaminated? Yes, very likely. But what about the evidence that isn't contaminated.
3. There is a small collection of very good photos and video out there, like the Patterson Gimlin film.
4. The forest is very, very, very, very BIG.
edit on 8-3-2012 by AustinMorrow because: Spelling and grammatical error check.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
"science cannot support it" Wow seems like you really did some research?


I hate threads like this...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Bigfoot can not exist today I am sorry but science cannot support it.


Thanks.

Guess that settles it then.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Unfortunately...

Science wasn't around the evening back in the mid 90's when huge 50-65 lb boulders were being thrown at our camp and our prospecting gear while several miles deep into the Trinity Forest looking for gold.

I can't even begin to describe the feeling of hearing a huge bolder under the canopy of a dark forest landing a few feet from you. You have no idea where it's coming from, you are just praying it doesn't land on you. You hear it hit, shine your flashlight on it, and that feeling of that any moment one of these can easily crash on top of the tent and kill us both.

There was also the crashing and breaking of tree limbs (that were 7-10 feet from ground-level, found when we went to investigate briefly the morning after). We ended up not getting a wink of sleep as the crashing and circling of 'something large' kept us awake, vigilant and scared all night. I only wish that I had been in researcher mode, but the flight from fright instincts were too strong for my gold prospecting partner and I.

The following morning after a quick recon, we couldn't get our gear packed up fast enough and hike back out towards our SUV. When we got back to the little village of Happy Camp, we reported our experience to the locals. No one seemed that impressed. An Indian that was sitting by himself overheard us talking about our scared evening, came over as we were leaving and proceeded to tell us his own two experiences (one included a sighting of about 10 feet from a creature). He also shared stories from his Mother, Father, his Grandmother and Grandfather.

He also said that "they" were a tribe not much different from us (the Indians), except larger and harrier. As the White man and hunters kept moving into the area, they kept retreating deeper into the woods. He stated the tossing of boulders is not that unusual and is a sign that your trespassing in their territory.

It's strange though.. not once did the Indian mention anything about them caring much about what Science had to say about them...


Johnny



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Bigfoot is a blurry animal, therefore must be immune to all of your 'sciency facts', he is hyper-dimensional, spirit, an interdimensional being like gnomes, leprechauns, faries, elves and unicorns of course.

No but seriously, Bigfoot cannot exist, I've been saying this for years, the Patterson footage is a guy in a well made but "tight fitting" suit, the discovery or history channel had a guy in a professionally made suit walk around, and guess what, the suit didn't look the same, the 'muscles' didn't move the same, well the suit was comfortably on, not tight at all, very loose in fact, and yet they continued to make the statement that the Patterson footage must be real because of the 'muscles', put a big guy in a tiny suit and you will turn those padded muscles into 'real' moving muscles because the suit is so tight. That's my stance.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Bigfoot is a blurry animal, therefore must be immune to all of your 'sciency facts', he is hyper-dimensional, spirit, an interdimensional being like gnomes, leprechauns, faries, elves and unicorns of course.

No but seriously, Bigfoot cannot exist, I've been saying this for years, the Patterson footage is a guy in a well made but "tight fitting" suit, the discovery or history channel had a guy in a professionally made suit walk around, and guess what, the suit didn't look the same, the 'muscles' didn't move the same, well the suit was comfortably on, not tight at all, very loose in fact, and yet they continued to make the statement that the Patterson footage must be real because of the 'muscles', put a big guy in a tiny suit and you will turn those padded muscles into 'real' moving muscles because the suit is so tight. That's my stance.


Let's completely dismiss the Patterson film altogether for a minute. Why can't Sasquatch exist, and what about the people who have long, up close and personal encounters. Are you going to humiliate them by saying they never saw something, or saw a bear. More people need to go out into the woods and try to experience this creature for themselves, that's why no one even considers Bigfoot.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I tend to agree with the OP, although it's impossible to completely prove a negative. I see Bigfoot as an anthropological artifact. That is, human beings are genetically and mentally programmed to see things like this. Its state of existence is in flux, and hard to define, and can't really be confirmed until a dead body is produced.

Until then, Bigfoot is more like a "concept." The concept exists, of course. But does the thing itself? There is some evidence, but like with UFOs, as we sure the evidence is of what we're assigning it to?



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I still think some science is questionable and can sometimes be as bad as religion in the sense that a scientest will say its scientific so it's truth and a priest will say it's in the bible so it's truth. I mean you see scientists dig up remains and put it together and draw pictures saying this is what it looked like a million years ago, how do they really know that? They could be completely wrong? Isn't science today what religion was to the people thousands of years ago where everything was proven by god how everythings proven by science today?

Sorry i'm not some researcher or anything just speaking my mind



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Mississippi has 3 different species of Panther/Mountain Lion & no bones are ever found of them or Bears for that matter....I don't know what to think about Bigfoot, but I always felt if you put me in the same woods as where they are reported with a pack of hunting dogs, I could get you proof real quick! I'd only want to shoot one so his body could be stuffed & displayed for physical evidence (& I'd write a book about it & do a few TV shows & take the money that goes with it
.Of course i'd have a good story about how I feared for my life & shot him in self defense.....Now I won't shoot a bear or panther in Ms (seen panthers a couple of times, actually trying to get a pic of em) b/c they are endangered & we know they exist, but I believe I'd have to take a "Bigfoot" down for the benefit of the scientific community, but just one....



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mississippi
 


No we don´t need anybody shooting anyone or anything. If they are out there let them be. lets hope their environment stays untouched. humans have a talent for destruction and making things go extinct....

If they where smart enough to survive the wild cowboys days they surely will NOT be found by dogs.. Im pretty sure that has been tried before.

I would love to see a sasquatch "if they really exist" but I would hate to see them displayed in zoos.
Also many have had the chance to kill one, but they couldnt pull the trigger because they look so human. You don´t want to murder anybody right?


peace!



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Aren't there some evidence to un-naturally large native american tribes? (like, 8 feet or so)

It's probably just a hoax, but I do remember seeing a site claiming to document such with preserved skeletons. Just a thought, perhaps there is evidence to it, and we wrote it off as something else.


Hey Miraj do you have a link or anything about this? Not arguing or anything just sounds interesting would be keen to check this out



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   


Please read the post before commenting and please don't go into hyperbole and conjecture.


Lol, please don't 'go into conjecture ATS.'

ETA, is Johnny green? If he's not then I am having one hell of a night...
edit on 12-3-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mississippi
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Mississippi has 3 different species of Panther/Mountain Lion & no bones are ever found of them or Bears for that matter....I don't know what to think about Bigfoot, but I always felt if you put me in the same woods as where they are reported with a pack of hunting dogs, I could get you proof real quick! I'd only want to shoot one so his body could be stuffed & displayed for physical evidence (& I'd write a book about it & do a few TV shows & take the money that goes with it
.Of course i'd have a good story about how I feared for my life & shot him in self defense.....Now I won't shoot a bear or panther in Ms (seen panthers a couple of times, actually trying to get a pic of em) b/c they are endangered & we know they exist, but I believe I'd have to take a "Bigfoot" down for the benefit of the scientific community, but just one....

What if bigfoot are very similar to humans, but more based on instinct and good at hiding. If you did kill one and "claim" it's self defence, wouldn't it feel like murder?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Bigfoot is an experiment gone wrong.... IMO



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Could Bigfoot be a cross between a monkey and a man where it didn't quite develop into man like we did? I would hope that if it's ever captured that it won't be killed





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join