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

Finding Bigfoot - Page 6

post #76 of 739
I feel bad taking away Idfnl's belief in bigfoot because it probably gives him so much joy. I remember when I was a young Harvey and I first saw Harry and the Hendersons and it brought much joy into my life.



Idfnl, when you can't believe your eyes, trust your heart.
post #77 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

That link doesn't say what you think it means.
That's not a case of Oxford "studying the physical evidence." Mostly because there is no physical evidence.

He's not studying the evidence, he's daring fruitbats to come forward because he knows it's all bunk.

That's silly, do you really believe Oxford is going to spend money daring fruitbats to come forward? There is a specific body of material they are planning to test, mostly includes hair, feces, blood samples, and the most interesting being DNA from a chunk of flesh taken by a guy that claims to have killed one.
post #78 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

That's silly, do you really believe Oxford is going to spend money daring fruitbats to come forward? There is a specific body of material they are planning to test, mostly includes hair, feces, blood samples, and the most interesting being DNA from a chunk of flesh taken by a guy that claims to have killed one.

So some guy cares enough to hunt and kill a sasquatch, then take a flesh sample....but it's just too much damn work to actually retrieve the body itself?


Convenient.
post #79 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

So some guy cares enough to hunt and kill a sasquatch, then take a flesh sample....but it's just too much damn work to actually retrieve the body itself?
Convenient.

Well Gib, if you ever bothered to watch the Documentary Harry and the Hendersons you'd realize that bigfeet are like 8' tall. That's far too much for a man to carry out on his own.
post #80 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

So some guy cares enough to hunt and kill a sasquatch, then take a flesh sample....but it's just too much damn work to actually retrieve the body itself?
Convenient.

He said he became scared shitless after he shot it because he didnt realize it had 2 little kids with it. He said it was a female. He worried the male would come running and got out of there as quick as he could.
post #81 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Well Gib, if you ever bothered to watch the Documentary Harry and the Hendersons you'd realize that bigfeet are like 8' tall. That's far too much for a man to carry out on his own.

^^ And this
post #82 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

He said he became scared shitless after he shot it because he didnt realize it had 2 little kids with it. He said it was a female. He worried the male would come running and got out of there as quick as he could.
And of course the body was gone when he came back. Crafty bastards.

And he didn't bring a camera or anything apparently, despite having time to run up and chop off a piece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

^^ And this

Your average redneck moron can figure out how to drag hundreds of pounds of bear, elk, moose etc out of deep woods. We can capture fucking whale sharks and drag them to different continents. And yet nobody can figure out how to retrieve a sasquatch. Quite a thing, that.
post #83 of 739
I think if we approach the topic logically, it becomes even more evident the bigfoot/sasquatch is a myth:

In the first place, nearly all the descriptions and depictions give us a creature that is an ape from the waist up, and a human from the waist down, in other words, not much different from the satyrs, sileni and centaurs of classical mythology.

Moreover, since they are nearly always depicted as fully bipedal, that means they have complete use of their hands. One would think, in that case, they would be much more nearly human. But they are not--no tools, no weapons, no fire, no permanent shelter, no nothing!

Also, if they existed, they would clearly be primates. Primates are very social animals. However, the sightings almost always involve a huge, solitary animal, presumably male. Very few sightings are of females, almost none of family groups, juveniles and subadults, which is what one might expect of a real animal.

While some investigators may claim that it is a form of Gigantopithecus, most scientists believe that Giganto was a brachiating tropical ape--really quite dissimilar to Bigfoot. If we rule out Giganto, then nothing really close to Bigfoot has ever appeared in the fossil record, not in the Old World and most certainly not in the New World.

Also, if Bigfoots were nearly human, you'd think they could have done a better job of defending their turf when the first, comparatively poorly armed palaeo-Indians came into the New World, given their obvious advantage in size and strength.

I could go on, but believers gonna believe!
post #84 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

I think if we approach the topic logically, it becomes even more evident the bigfoot/sasquatch is a myth:
In the first place, nearly all the descriptions and depictions give us a creature that is an ape from the waist up, and a human from the waist down, in other words, not much different from the satyrs, sileni and centaurs of classical mythology.

Untrue. All depictions of the saquatch are of a cross between an ape an a human. Long hair like an ape. Brow like a Cromagnon. Gait like an ape/human mix. Size like a male gorilla. Lots of mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Moreover, since they are nearly always depicted as fully bipedal, that means they have complete use of their hands. One would think, in that case, they would be much more nearly human. But they are not--no tools, no weapons, no fire, no permanent shelter, no nothing!

Depictions are they are highly intelligent. They use tools. They are said to throw rocks at dear to drive them as well as kill them. They also use sticks to knock trees to communicate to eachother. Also known to throw rocks to scare hikers, which mirrors the behavior to scare and move deer. Known to hunt in groups. Known to keep family units. Known to use caves to sleep. Also very skilled at hiding.

To me, all signs of high intelligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Also, if they existed, they would clearly be primates. Primates are very social animals. However, the sightings almost always involve a huge, solitary animal, presumably male. Very few sightings are of females, almost none of family groups, juveniles and subadults, which is what one might expect of a real animal.
While some investigators may claim that it is a form of Gigantopithecus, most scientists believe that Giganto was a brachiating tropical ape--really quite dissimilar to Bigfoot. If we rule out Giganto, then nothing really close to Bigfoot has ever appeared in the fossil record, not in the Old World and most certainly not in the New World.

Orangutangs are solitary.

Not all sightings are that way. Many are of groups or family units.

Not male either. The most famous film shows a female, you see her big ass tits flopping as she walks.

There are thousands of sightings of them where they are adolescent in size. Many with young ones. Even twins. Also color. There are many sightings of white bigfoots. Below is the best example I've seen.

Bigfoots are definitely not gigantipothicus. All (as of yet unsubstantiated) DNA evidence shows its a form of humanoid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Also, if Bigfoots were nearly human, you'd think they could have done a better job of defending their turf when the first, comparatively poorly armed palaeo-Indians came into the New World, given their obvious advantage in size and strength.
I could go on, but believers gonna believe!

What animal do you know intentionally goes out to start fights with other species? Other than humans, of course. You would imagine an intelligent other species would see this. In addition, if Bigfoot exists, they didnt see American Indians as a threat. And American Indians were/are reverent of Bigfoot. To this day they defend it. there is said to be a clear as day video of a Bigfoot going in a dumpster at an Indian reservation casino, they say it was 11 feet tall. The indians refuse to release it.


Here is the albino vid:




Here is a deconstruction, pretty hokey commentary, but the slow motion shows clear changes in facial gestures:




Here is the floppy tits vid...


Edited by idfnl - 11/26/12 at 6:10pm
post #85 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

What animal do you know intentionally goes out to start fights with other species? Other than humans, of course.

Uhhhh.......you ever watch any nature programming about real animals? Because they do that shit all the time.
post #86 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Uhhhh.......you ever watch any nature programming about real animals? Because they do that shit all the time.

Ya, to fucking eat.
post #87 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Ya, to fucking eat.

Wrong! A lot of animals, especially predators, have inter-specific fights--lions vs. hyenas, tigers vs. wolves, mountain lions vs. wolves, etc.

I see the believers are still clinging to the old Patterson film. My, my! Patterson was con-man and a carny. Since the guy who made and sold Patterson the suit (Philip Morris) has come forward, as has the guy who wore the suit in the film (Bob Hieronymus, supported by the testimony of his family), it seems surprising that people are still trying to vindicate it.

A professor of anthropology who did seriously investigate these matters told me not long (about a couple of years) after the release of the Patterson-Gimlin film that he was convinced it was a man in costume. He felt the evidence for an undiscovered hominid in Asia was much more plausible than the North American Bigfoot, which he pretty much discounted.
post #88 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Wrong! A lot of animals, especially predators, have inter-specific fights--lions vs. hyenas, tigers vs. wolves, mountain lions vs. wolves, etc.
I see the believers are still clinging to the old Patterson film. My, my! Patterson was con-man and a carny. Since the guy who made and sold Patterson the suit (Philip Morris) has come forward, as has the guy who wore the suit in the film (Bob Hieronymus, supported by the testimony of his family), it seems surprising that people are still trying to vindicate it.
A professor of anthropology who did seriously investigate these matters told me not long (about a couple of years) after the release of the Patterson-Gimlin film that he was convinced it was a man in costume. He felt the evidence for an undiscovered hominid in Asia was much more plausible than the North American Bigfoot, which he pretty much discounted.

INTER SPECIES. Meaning lions dont go picking fights with hyenas unless there is food involved. Gimme a break man.

The guy who claims to have sold the suit made that story up. You dont know that?

The Gimlin film went from real to fake and now back to real. Everyone who studies it seriously determines it as real. The only people who believe fake are the ones that follow the soap opera around it. Its not fake.
post #89 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Ya, to fucking eat.

Uh, no.

Was a recent study on domesticated cats. They kill, on average, a dozen animals a week with some killing far more than that. Almost none of the kills were eaten. They're just killing stuff for fun. They're far from the only animal to behave in such a manner.
post #90 of 739
Incontrovertible video evidence.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot