Bigfoot

Yes you have made that assertion, but so far it is totally unfounded.But I have told you and Quetzal has affirmed, that is not how it works.The fact is, that so far there is zero evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Who knows, it is certainly possible such a critter exists, but since there are reports from the North East to South East to South West to North West and just about every inch inbetween; and since with something that supposedly has (at a minimum) a continent-wide home range, there should be some evidence.So far there is none.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you.I'd also like to point out that no one is claiming that current populations are genetically viable. Even if, lets say 100 individuals, was needed for viablilty in the past, that doesn't mean that the current population is at 100, or even that once the population drops below 100 the species vanishes all together.A no longer genetically viable species could spiral the drain for centuries, especially if it had a long lifespan.We could kill off all but 20 Galapagos tortoises and still have living representatives of that species for several hundred years. Again, thanks.I'm not arguing that Bigfoot MUST exist because it could exist. I'm just saying that the "experts" can not rule out the species based on how many individuals they think exist or what they think those individuals must eat. This is true of most of the sightings but not all of the sightings. Apparently there have been enough multiple sightings for websites like Crytomundo to give them a seperate designation.However, your over all point stands - I don't believe that there have been any sighting of bigfoot troops. Orangutuans are not gregarious. Males and females are rarely seen together outside of mating. Mother raise their children for several years, then they go their seperate ways.

I fear that I've let the thread be dragged off topic.I am not arguing that Bigfoot must exist, nor am I arguing that you should believe it exists.What I am saying is that "experts" shouldn't be making statements like:"Bigfoot can't exist because there isn't enough food in the Pacific northwest."Those sort of statements would require information that the "expert" could not possibly have. (ie number of individuals, what food the animal eats, etc).If the documentary I was watching had made statements like this: "Despite these claims, no solid evidence has been found." there would be no discussion.

quote:

---

One would think that of any of the Southeast Asian countries, we'd have known about animals in Vietnam.

---

The mammals were found in a deep, dense jungle in a place where there were few field Biologists.Not so surprising that they stayed undiscovered.When was the last time a undiscovered large land mammal was found in in North America?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

My point was that we had a lot of people very very interested in what was going on in the jungles for Vietnam for several years.It's probable that at least 1 american set eyes on 1 of these animals during that time. But it wasn't "discovered" until it was a field biologist "discovered" it.Much like the Americas were "discovered" by Christopher Columbus - a surprise to the millions of people living here at the time.

quote:

---

"Actually you haven't Zhimbo. You've seen examples of everything we currently have evidence for."

---

Well, let me alter my wording...I've seen dead, or live, examples of every other large North American animal whose existence is taken seriously. For animals that exist, remains (at the very least) seem to be present. It's kind of a necessary by-product of...you know...existing.Why you then go off on fossils of extinct animals from prehistory I have no idea.If all you're arguing is "it is not a violation of fundamental physical law that something like Bigfoot might exist, despite an utter lack of any captured individual, bodies, bones or other remains, or indeed any remotely convincing evidence", there isn't much to talk about. You're right. But, so what?Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.

Ummm...Nuggin...Almost NONE of what you addressed was in the post I was referring to that you refused to answer by Crash. Exactly 1 point from your lengthy reply to me was relevant: which was neither ad hominen nor a strawman. Nor does your reply here actually address Crash's point, most of which you omit, creating a...wait for it...STRAWMAN of Crash's argument. You state Crash claims that only 1 plane has ever crashed in the Pacific NW...but he doesn't when you read his entire statement. Instead, he is saying you haven't supplied enough relevant info to make it clear how valid your point is.

So I see you've forgotten a third time that the burden of evidence is on those making the assertions of existence?I'm not under any obligation to provide evidence against something you can't seem to provide evidence for. Your complete impotence essentially settles the issue.

But you're just engaged in a ridiculous double standard. You expect serious people to accept, on no evidence, the possibility of a population of Bigfeet, as one of those unknowns we should speculate about; but as soon as the serious people do speculate about what it would be like if a population of Bigfeet were living in the PacNW, you call foul.What the hell do you want, Nug? You've got no problem speculating with absolutely no evidence, and you reserve the right to mutate your putative Bigfoot to answer whatever objection is currently before you; but as soon as the rest of us suggest that your repeated mutations begin to add up to a chimera, you pitch a fit.Do you think that what you're engaged in represents anything close to reason? If so, you're deluding yourself. The experts aren't the ones proposing Bigfeet in the PacNW. We can only go from what Bigfoot proponents say, and if all that adds up to a creature that can't exist, then the fault certainly isn't ours. You need to be a lot more careful about how you make up your bullshit, is all.

I think you miss my point.If you take all the animals that currently live in North America, and all the animals we have fossil remains for in North America, we would still not have representatives of every animal which has lived here.That's the nature of the fossil record. We can't say, "We know every animal that ever lived here."Does this negate the rest of your point about lack of evidence in support of Bigfoot. No, certainly not.I'm just saying that there are certainly animals who have roamed North America for whom we have no fossil representative.

Yeah, Zhim, the thing is this: I will not be held to a higher standard than Crashfrog.Sure, I could take the high road. But since NO ONE is working traffic duty on the low road, why waste the gas?I notice that his "you've proposed a large population of hibernating hominid ruminants who survive by tickling the fish right out of the stream." escapes any critisism.As such, I really don't think you should be making comments on my claims that planes have been lost in the Pacific Northwest.But if you insist on an example, I'll give you the best one: Yes, this is Alaska, not Oregon, but it's the same wilderness and more importantly it's the most massive air search ever undertaken in the history of the world.35 years later, we STILL don't have a crash site.This is obviously not the only airplane to crash in the region, but it is certainly the one most searched for.And that's my point. If a plane can disappear into the forest, why can't an animal?Edited by Nuggin, : clicked submit too soon

You are the one asserting these things, Crash. Hence it is your responsibility to provide evidence.You asserted that there wasn't enough food.
You asserted that all the witnesses were drunk backpackers.
You asserted that the only way to catch fish is with fish hooks.Go ahead, provide the evidence.

I guess you forgot for the fourth time that the burden of evidence is on you. You are held to a greater evidentiary standard, because you're the one making the assertions. You're the one asking us to believe in Bigfeet absent any evidence.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's two redundant conversations going on here. My various remarks were simply an attempt to gauge how extraordinary your claim truly was, but it's largely a moot point - zero evidence doesn't support any claim, no matter how prosaic. Did you, or did you not, make reference to hand-fishing (also known as "fish-tickling") as an explanation for how your population of Bigfeet might fish without spears or hooks? Or do you just have a bad memory?Look, it's hardly my problem that when I repeat your own claims back to you, you see them as completely ridiculous. If you're so concerned about being made to look the fool by plain statements of your claims, maybe you should be making different claims.

Crash, I fear you still don't understand the debate.ONCE AGAIN, I am not asserting that Bigfoot exists or that you should believe in it.I AM asserting that these "experts" (of which YOU are apparently one) can not possibly prove their claims of disproof.You continue to make the claims, despite the fact that they constantly depend on facts which you can not possibly have at your disposal.But, we I ask for evidence, you throw insults.Either saddle up or grow up, cuz you're just wasting everyone's time at this point.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting consequences of your proposals to show you how your claims are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence to substantiate. The evidence is your assertions. At every turn I've simply extended your ad hoc imaginings to their logical conclusions. That they lead to the conclusion that Bigfoot is a myth is hardly something that disproves my position; rather, they buttress it.If that's not what you wanted to do, then I question the wisdom of opening a thread where you asked people do do just that. Your totally schitzophrenic behavior on this issue is just further evidence that nothing even close to a reasonable thought process has brought you to your deep abiding faith in your forest friend.