Bigfoot yay or nay ?

Big Foot has been spotted in all 50 states in the U.S. Seems there are a lot of people having the same hallucination, if he doesn't exist.

Here is what a member posted on my paranormal thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think bigfoot has been seen and encountered several times in all 50 states, but i'm not sure about hawaii?

Sure enough, bigfoot has been seen in hawaii > www.bigfootencounters.com...

Now theres around 2,500 miles of ocean between hawaii and california. So either a population of bigfoot has survived on hawaii, and if so, how did they originally get there?
Or bigfoot is capable of swimming incredibly long distances?
Or bigfoot likes to stowaway on ships and planes?
Or bigfoot is ascending among us from underground?

He was a character!

reply to post by anton74


I say add the totality of the evidence across the board and it's more plausible than not and considering the dna findings with Neanderthal, Denisova and Hobbit species, it's most likely a relative of ours and my guess is they are about as close as any "missing link" to us we're going to find.

reply to post by anton74


Nope Plenty quick.

And you were the one who used the fossil record as further argument that Big Foot doesn't exist. I was merely pointing out how that logic is flawed.

All I know is seeing is believing. And I have seen. I know I can't prove it but I know.

reply to post by randyvs


Yes, just a wanderer from another part of Earth.

reply to post by randyvs


Having seen one at close range in daylight conditions when I was sixteen, I cannot help but be a believer. I have never been more frightened of something before that time, nor since then. They are out there, but I think they are smart enough to escape detections if they wish. Hell, when I walked past where it was initially, I didn't see a thing, were talking about a few feet. I did not note its presence until it began to walk away.

reply to post by anton74


Strangely enough, there have been fossil remains, though limited, of a creature who bears a strong resemblance to bigfoot. Gigantopithicus Blacki, was an upright walking ape, of similar size and features and his fossils have been found in China, dating back to a time when man had lived along side it. If this creature were to have crossed the land bridge along with early pre-clovis hunters, enough time has passed for it to have adapted to its specific environment.

Originally posted by Malynn
reply to post by anton74

 

Nope

Plenty quick.

And you were the one who used the fossil record as further argument that Big Foot doesn't exist. I was merely pointing out how that logic is flawed.

Zero large primate fossils have been found in the Americas and no BF fossil has ever been found. That doesn't help to prove BF is real. It is actually a valid argument. One single fossil would completely change everything though.

Originally posted by hequick
reply to post by anton74

 

Strangely enough, there have been fossil remains, though limited, of a creature who bears a strong resemblance to bigfoot. Gigantopithicus Blacki, was an upright walking ape, of similar size and features and his fossils have been found in China, dating back to a time when man had lived along side it. If this creature were to have crossed the land bridge along with early pre-clovis hunters, enough time has passed for it to have adapted to its specific environment.

True, but it is believed to not have resembled BF but, in fact an Orangutan. If it did cross and evolve, why no fossils?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee


These are my points. These points are not hard to understand, and they are logical conclusions. Is Bigfoot the most adaptable mammal on the planet, does he use tech, or is he actually a they and Bigfoot is actually multiple unknown species?

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

you haven't "logically" concluded anything.

is he the most adaptable? why not? what do you know about him or what do you not know about him in order to "logically" conclude anything?

why would he need technology in order to adapt to a variety of climates if he has already naturally adapted to them? how do you know he hasn't?

why would you think there would be only one type of the species? why couldn't there be multiple ones that have spread across the globe and naturally adapted? why is it unreasonable to think they've been around much longer than we have? Just because we are handicapped with a need for technology doesn't mean they are.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee


These are my points. These points are not hard to understand, and they are logical conclusions. Is Bigfoot the most adaptable mammal on the planet, does he use tech, or is he actually a they and Bigfoot is actually multiple unknown species?

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

you haven't "logically" concluded anything.

is he the most adaptable? why not? what do you know about him or what do you not know about him in order to "logically" conclude anything?

I don't have to know -anything- about him to ask that question. I have to know about every other known mammal in the world. No other mammal in the world can survive in every other climate in the world without man's help. For Bigfoot to be able to do this, he would have to be the most adaptable mammal in the world. Or..

why would he need technology in order to adapt to a variety of climates if he has already naturally adapted to them? how do you know he hasn't?

See this is how logic works, friend. You are using the first conclusion, that you are under the impression that Bigfoot is the most adaptable species on the planet, and are dismissing the second conclusion based on that. You are asking questions based on my deductive reasoning. You are understanding the concept without understanding that you are.

To answer, Bigfoot mat not need technology if it is in fact that most physically adaptable mammal in the world. However, this opens up a new problem, because the same reasons that dead bigfoot aren't in the temperate forests don't apply to sub zero climates or the deserts that some of these things have been reported in. An Old World hominid being able to survive in all climates is an interesting idea, but the evolutionary record doesn't support such a creature. Even we as humans, the currently most adaptable mammals, cannot survive in all climates without technological help.

why would you think there would be only one type of the species? why couldn't there be multiple ones that have spread across the globe and naturally adapted? why is it unreasonable to think they've been around much longer than we have? Just because we are handicapped with a need for technology doesn't mean they are.

I am not making any such claim that it would have to be one type of species, this is just one of the three ideas that are the most logically sound. Assuming for a moment that it exists, Bigfoot doesn't use tech, and isn't the most adaptable mammal in the world, logical reasoning dictates that it would be most likely to be multiple species that are being lumped into a singular misidentification.

I will go with yes. I have never seen one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, I do have doubts at times mainly because of so many big foot hoaxes.


Peace

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by Malynn
reply to post by anton74

 

Nope

Plenty quick.

And you were the one who used the fossil record as further argument that Big Foot doesn't exist. I was merely pointing out how that logic is flawed.

Zero large primate fossils have been found in the Americas and no BF fossil has ever been found. That doesn't help to prove BF is real. It is actually a valid argument. One single fossil would completely change everything though.

Oh for christ sake. You are not even aware that skeletons of nephelim giants have been found throughout the world and locked up in special areas of the museum completly off limits to everyone unless you have a special reservation.

Now why is that so????

Watch ancient aliens if you want to learn something worthwhile. Its on history channel. You could also buy books about ancient astronauts or just use the internet which is free. People don't have to be ignorant, they choose to be.

Originally posted by anton74
True, but it is believed to not have resembled BF but, in fact an Orangutan. If it did cross and evolve, why no fossils?

Because as I mentioned fossil creation happens under very specific circumstances. Based on the statistics finding one (or one being created) of a primate is like being struck by lightning. Absence of fossil records is not evidence of absence.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Also, hunters are killers. That's the one thing all of them have in common. They hunt animals to kill them. I am not buying the rationale that these hunters live by some unwritten but universally adhered to code of ethics regarding what could be the closest thing any of them might get to hunting the most dangerous.

That stereotype is wrong. Sure hunters kill, but being an avid hunter myself I can assure you most kill with a respect to the animal, most dont go in guns blazing shoot-whatever-you see, and amost always we kill to have meat, majority do not kill more game than they can eat. I know whenever this topic has came up around any other hunters, I have always gotten a "no" when it came to shooting Bigfoot. Sure there are hunters out there who would shoot it, but you are wrong to assume that we all would.

Originally posted by Pressthebutton

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Also, hunters are killers. That's the one thing all of them have in common. They hunt animals to kill them. I am not buying the rationale that these hunters live by some unwritten but universally adhered to code of ethics regarding what could be the closest thing any of them might get to hunting the most dangerous.

That stereotype is wrong. Sure hunters kill, but being an avid hunter myself I can assure you most kill with a respect to the animal, most dont go in guns blazing shoot-whatever-you see, and amost always we kill to have meat, majority do not kill more game than they can eat. I know whenever this topic has came up around any other hunters, I have always gotten a "no" when it came to shooting Bigfoot. Sure there are hunters out there who would shoot it, but you are wrong to assume that we all would.

We are in agreement, I just think you misunderstood what it was I was saying. Someone said that no hunter would ever kill a Bigfoot. I was simply explaining that hunters do not live by some universal moral code. The one thing they all have in common is that they are killers. Some hunters would kill bigfoot, some wouldn't.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by Malynn
reply to post by anton74

 

Nope

Plenty quick.

And you were the one who used the fossil record as further argument that Big Foot doesn't exist. I was merely pointing out how that logic is flawed.

Zero large primate fossils have been found in the Americas and no BF fossil has ever been found. That doesn't help to prove BF is real. It is actually a valid argument. One single fossil would completely change everything though.

Oh for christ sake. You are not even aware that skeletons of nephelim giants have been found throughout the world and locked up in special areas of the museum completly off limits to everyone unless you have a special reservation.

Now why is that so????

Watch ancient aliens if you want to learn something worthwhile. Its on history channel. You could also buy books about ancient astronauts or just use the internet which is free. People don't have to be ignorant, they choose to be.

Oh, so you believe in nephelim giants, but Paul Bunyon is worthy of scorn?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Oh, so you believe in nephelim giants, but Paul Bunyon is worthy of scorn?

Why do I have to have an opinion of paul bunyon

Why do you keep hammering about him

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Oh, so you believe in nephelim giants, but Paul Bunyon is worthy of scorn?

Why do I have to have an opinion of paul bunyon

Why do you keep hammering about him

I don't mean to imply that you personally have an opinion on him, it was more a point made to the thread at large. Things like the Nephelim Giants will be entered as a perfectly acceptable pieces of evidence, but ideas like the entire phenomenon are probably cultural abstracts is ridiculed, again not specifically by you.

It's rather telling.