or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finding Bigfoot - Page 11

post #151 of 745
Congrats, bro. You win.
post #152 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Congrats, bro. You win.

Thank you. From unicorns, to fucking rabbits, to spite, you've failed to derail my thread. You're better at espousing your right win extremist views. While I have enjoyed your attempts to humiliate me, I think me espousing this is real has done this for you by proxy, which, by proxy means you have nothing of value to add here. Unless you want to debate the topic with something other than snark or derision, go back to being Pio's henchman in CE.
post #153 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

The number is likely 10k in N America. Combine the vast, vast expanses of spaces and a nocturnal predator and you have a pretty convincing case as to why they are rarely viewed. Note that it was just in the last decade we have confirmed the Bili Ape, the worlds largest chimp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

Ten thousand BFs in North America? That would mean that there are about 3X as many BFs in North America as there are tigers in Asia these days! And BFs are "nocturnal predators"? Have any animal carcasses been identified as BF kills? Any records of livestock predation by BFs? Any cases of man-eating BFs? Any BFs seen defending their kills? And what might their principal prey animals be, pray tell?

The Bili-Bondo apes were an interesting discovery, but they are merely a large race of an extremely familiar animal, not an animal completely unknown to science. Central Africa, even these days, is probably less accessible to Western science than the Cascade Mountains.
post #154 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Ten thousand BFs in North America? That would mean that there are about 3X as many BFs in North America as there are tigers in Asia these days! And BFs are "nocturnal predators"? Have any animal carcasses been identified as BF kills? Any records of livestock predation by BFs? Any cases of man-eating BFs? Any BFs seen defending their kills? And what might their principal prey animals be, pray tell?
The Bili-Bondo apes were an interesting discovery, but they are merely a large race of an extremely familiar animal, not an animal completely unknown to science. Central Africa, even these days, is probably less accessible to Western science than the Cascade Mountains.

BF deer kills have been commonly identified as the characteristic back leg break that disables the deer/similar. Many deer legs have been found with this characteristic, no known animal does this.

Asian tigers roam a much, much smaller area. Look at a map, they are concentrated in a small region, although the maps make it look wider, its not. Much smaller than N America forested regions.

Cattle kills appear to be rare, no explanation other that being homonid they would understand the risk? Or plentiful deer populations? Or that they don't like open fields? Dunno. Never seen one.

While I accept your point about the Bili, its not a homonid and you need to consider the potentially wide disparity in intelligence. All indications are the Sasquatch are keenly aware of humans and know we carry guns. Its possible, even likely they use complex language and therefore are well aware of our abilities to kill deer from long distance and by proxy themselves. If mean if you saw a dude killed from distance and had no real conception of guns, you'd say oh shit those white boy bitches can kill, we better back off.
post #155 of 745
mk_davis_pgf.gif
post #156 of 745
I'm convinced
post #157 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

mk_davis_pgf.gif


Not a bad pair of tatties.
post #158 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

'Finding Bigfoot': New DNA study actually proves the existence of Sasquatch
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/national/finding-bigfoot-new-dna-study-actually-proves-the-existence-of-sasquatch#ixzz2DuJhAUFP
This study has yet to be repeated by other researchers, but its the focus of what the Oxford University study I posted about earlier is verifying. I thought the last paragraph was very interesting, she calls for Sasquatch to be legally recognized as an indigenous people to prevent hunting, sport and trapping.

Hey, Dr. Melba Ketchum is pretty hot, most certainly for an old broad who has been doing genetic research and such for 27 years. Were I a tad younger, I'd like to make her bite the pillow!
Edited by JLibourel - 12/5/12 at 3:20pm
post #159 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

I agree, many sightings are likely misidentification, but all those sightings cannot be false. If you were to do statistical analysis on it, I am sure it would demonstrate a 99.9% probability that the animal exists. Having rudimentary statistics skills, I think its virtually impossible there are this many hoaxes, liars and misidentifications. Statistics should show, on its own, its very improbable that Sasquatch doesn't exist.
Damn I hope you're trolling lol8[1].gif

By your logic, demons, angels, and little green aliens have been "statistically proven."
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

You have no math skills, Harvey. And you condone fucking animals. You're the last person to have a comment taken seriously.
You could easily correlate a few variable on the topic and show its unlikely so many reports indicate its fake. I've also not cited any statistics, just that my (admitted) limited capacity to do some statistical analysis makes this being a false positive very unlikely.
Statistics, it does not work that way.
Quote:
I you have any means to prove what I suspect is somehow false, please, by all means.
Ironically, I just read an article that used exactly this logic to discuss that you can prove a negative.
Quote:
Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all
shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues
that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible
evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no
Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender
can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be
hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not!
(until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too).
The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give
us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of
Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty
about anything at all, positive or negative

Your argument is so dumb that it's literally a textbook example of poor logical reasoning. Good game, good game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

BF deer kills have been commonly identified as the characteristic back leg break that disables the deer/similar. Many deer legs have been found with this characteristic, no known animal does this.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
post #160 of 745
Thread Starter 
^^ not when there is physical evidence.
post #161 of 745
"Physical evidence."

Quote unquote.
post #162 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

"Physical evidence."
Quote unquote.

Meaning what exactly?
post #163 of 745
There are enough pieces of the Holy Cross floating around Europe to build an ark. They all think their piece is the real one, and that it has miraculous powers.
post #164 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

There are enough pieces of the Holy Cross floating around Europe to build an ark. They all think their piece is the real one, and that it has miraculous powers.

Holy cross doesnt have DNA
post #165 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

BF deer kills have been commonly identified as the characteristic back leg break that disables the deer/similar. Many deer legs have been found with this characteristic, no known animal does this.

Oh, so it's impossible the deer got its leg broken while it was being overpowered by a "known" predator, or the leg was crunched by the jaws of the predator, or that it got its leg broken accidentally and then fell victim to a predator?
Quote:
Cattle kills appear to be rare, no explanation other that being homonid they would understand the risk? Or plentiful deer populations? Or that they don't like open fields? Dunno. Never seen one.
While I accept your point about the Bili, its not a homonid and you need to consider the potentially wide disparity in intelligence. All indications are the Sasquatch are keenly aware of humans and know we carry guns. Its possible, even likely they use complex language and therefore are well aware of our abilities to kill deer from long distance and by proxy themselves. If mean if you saw a dude killed from distance and had no real conception of guns, you'd say oh shit those white boy bitches can kill, we better back off.

What risk in killing cattle, especially smaller livestock like sheep and goats, would the BFs be aware of? No BF has ever been shot dead or wounded while attacking cattle. I return to the points I have made earlier: If BFs are so intelligent, so clever, endowed with complex language and such physical prowess that they can run down deer, etc., why do they seem so primitive? By most accounts, they don't seem to be even as clever as chimpanzees. Moreover, and I hate to be repetitive, If the BFs are so good, why did they allow the palaeo-Indians to easily overrun the Americas? They certainly would have been in competition for deer, other food resources and just plain "turf." If not as well armed as the Indians, they would have had the advantage of vastly superior size and strength, probably superior bushcraft and familiarity with the terrain...if they had really existed, that is!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot