OT - Is Bigfoot Real or a Hoax?
Randy
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=6103350
I've been remotely following this for years, because its fun and
interesting. A good point brought out from another source I read was people
don't live in the remote areas as much as they did in the old gold rush
days, and such. Today people pretty much live off roads and either in rural
areas with power, utilities and water, or in the cities, but very few live
way off the grid like they did in the old days. So there are less sightings
and stories then there were in the old days. But with population growth now
with seniors and people seeking more space in the mountains, sightings have
increased once again.
What I find interesting is the FBI print experts who examined footprints for
30 years, came out and said that Bigfoot footprint casks contain those same
fine lines as thumbprints do, and this cannot be fudged, at least they don't
think so. What's interesting to me, is the Wildlife, Fish and Game,
California department of Foresty, Sequoia park service have said that there
is a bi-ped, or some kind of primate in the area, from finding these
footprints so often, plus sightings.
Those guys know the difference between bears and apes. So we got Bigfoot
here! They say Bigfoot might be hiding in caves that go hundreds of miles
underground, and maybe that's why no remains have ever been found! China and
Russia both have these beasts in their records going back thousands of
years! Is Bigfoot real or a hoax?
Randy
Donald Munro
> Those guys know the difference between bears and apes. So we got Bigfoot
> here! They say Bigfoot might be hiding in caves that go hundreds of miles
> underground, and maybe that's why no remains have ever been found! China
> and Russia both have these beasts in their records going back thousands of
> years! Is Bigfoot real or a hoax?
Does he have an internet connection ? Does he ride a bike ?
Does he post to rbr ?
MagillaGorilla
Don't you find it strange that out of all the large animals in the
world, only this one has never been photographed or shot by a hunter?
Not a single skeleton or carcass ever found. Yet we have thousands of
dinosaur skeletons from hundreds of millions of years ago in museums all
over the world.
As for the FBI, they obviously have no expertise in such matters.
Caves that go "hundreds of miles" underground? What geologist told you
this nonsense? No mammal would ever do that, even if there were such a
cave (where in the Pacific Northwest and northern California are their
such deep caves?)
What does Bigfoot eat? If he's a herbivore, he would be seen grazing on
plants or trees, which do not grow in caves. If he's a carnivore, what
animals does he hunt?
Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die
there since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of
their waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that
he would only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
Finally, nobody in the park service would vouch for such nonsense
because as field scientists, they know that the phenotypes of
evolutionary biology dictate that bipedal warm-blooded animals covered
with thick fur with stereoscopic vision do not live in caves. Bats that
are blind and use sonar live in dark caves, not primates with small eyes
that see color vision. That's right up there with saying a really huge
shark lives at the top of Mt. Hood buried in the snow.
Conclusion: There is no Bigfoot. People are delusional in their belief
systems. Just like there is no God or flying saucers yet people believe
in those delusions too.
Magilla
(no relation to Bigfoot)
MagillaGorilla
> "Donald Munro" <fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:48e12703$0$5119$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Some of those guys under the gorilla suits might, but some of those sighting
> might be real I guess. It's a break from the massive onslaught of Political
> threads. My guess is, there is a bigfoot, but incredibly hard to prove. I
> would of thought those hi tech motion cameras strapped to trees, might of
> caught something by now, like with the new critters they found in Borneo.
>
> R
>
>
An animal the size of Bigfoot would have to spend almost all of its time
hunting outside in the forest in daylight. It would be easy to see.
There is no reason a hunter, hiker, game warden, scientist, or camper
wouldn't have seen one by now and photographed it, shot it, videotaped
it, or trapped it.
Name another non-marine animal of such size that has been alleged to
exist, but never seen by someone credible?
It's like saying there's a 500-ton elephant that lives in the Australian
outback, but we've never seen it. And that this is plausible because
there's some tiny species that lives in a jungle and weighs 16 ounces
that looks nearly identical to dozens of similar-looking species that we
just recently discovered.
Sorry, there is no Bigfoot. It's obvious that Bigfoot is an incantation
by people who have no critical thought process and just start
perpetuating myths with no forethought whatsoever to articulating
credible details that when challenged, don't even pass the laugh test.
It's right up there with believing in flying saucers and God.
Magilla
Randy
"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
> Don't you find it strange that out of all the large animals in the world,
> only this one has never been photographed or shot by a hunter?
Of course it seems that way, but there is a lot of photos and videos out
there for so many years now. Lots of them have been called fake, many have
not. The main one researchers or scientists have not completely dismissed is
the Patterson film.
>
> Not a single skeleton or carcass ever found. Yet we have thousands of
> dinosaur skeletons from hundreds of millions of years ago in museums all
> over the world.
They haven't been able to capture many really old skeltons like Lucie
either, but Dino they have. Not too many of those giant birds either, or a
lot of others, so the archives are incomplete, the land and the sea has not
yet given up all her secrets.
>
> As for the FBI, they obviously have no expertise in such matters.
>
> Caves that go "hundreds of miles" underground? What geologist told you
> this nonsense? No mammal would ever do that, even if there were such a
> cave (where in the Pacific Northwest and northern California are their
> such deep caves?)
Undiscovered caves, but without water, light, and breathable air, not
possible. Water and air are often in underground caves, but I haven't
studied anything about light. I don't know how light could exist in
underground caves artifically, like in Journey to the Center of the Earth.
>
> What does Bigfoot eat? If he's a herbivore, he would be seen grazing on
> plants or trees, which do not grow in caves. If he's a carnivore, what
> animals does he hunt?
All good questions!
>
> Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die there
> since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of their
> waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that he would
> only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
Depends on intelligent and habit I guess. Where does Bigfoot go to die? Good
question! Animals often wonder off to die somewhere remotely, even
domesticated pets will wonder off to die somewhere remotely, if given half a
chance.
>
> Finally, nobody in the park service would vouch for such nonsense because
> as field scientists, they know that the phenotypes of evolutionary biology
> dictate that bipedal warm-blooded animals covered with thick fur with
> stereoscopic vision do not live in caves. Bats that are blind and use
> sonar live in dark caves, not primates with small eyes that see color
> vision. That's right up there with saying a really huge shark lives at
> the top of Mt. Hood buried in the snow.
Well, I'm not hung up on the cave thing, but all these researchers and even
some scientists think we might be getter closer to closing in on a Bigfoot,
that's its just a matter of time. I want to believe at least a remote
possiblity of it, because its fun, and if one is found, its going to be
incredibly interesting to the whole world, dead or alive!
>
> Conclusion: There is no Bigfoot. People are delusional in their belief
> systems. Just like there is no God or flying saucers yet people believe
> in those delusions too.
The UFO thing is considered to be more off the chart then the Bigfoot thing.
At least, an unknown primate is entertained by a few scientists. There have
been new discoveries of some fair sized critters we never even knew existed
in Borneo and such. The size of the worlds forests are so astronomically
big, at first glance it does seem possible a Bigfoot could hide in there. If
there is a Biggie foot, surely he could be an expert at hiding, and living
in the forest, and nocturnal probably. Mountains Lions are nocturnal, and
hide very well from humans. In 30 years of living the mountains, I don't
believe I have ever seen one on mountain bike rides or out in the open. I
swear one darted in front of my car once years ago, but even old timers up
here claim to have never seen one in 50 years. Yet, they are here, in good
numbers. Forestry told me they had seem some, but very rare to catch a
glimpse of one.
UFO's. That's a good one. Scientists say its possible. Its possible for
another solar system to be set up with planets with such proximity, as Earth
is to the sun, and that life could exist in other galaxies. Its an awfully
big universe? On the other hand, don't you think its unlikely that the only
life in the universe with its billions of galaxies and stars only exists on
planet earth?
The famous case of course is Roswell. If the good ole gov has those little
critters soaking in embalming fluids over at Area 51, they are not talking!
The story goes, three critters popped out of that little ship, and those
guys who came back with stories of stuff like aluminum foil that expands
back out to its normal size and shape after crumpling, and all those guys
from the military who were there and told their stories, Jesse Marcel and
others. Problem is, I need the goods, and the documents. If that stuff
exists, they need to share it with the public, and put an end to the
speculation! Area 51 supposely has a space ship too! Even if they don't have
it, none of these researchers are going to believe them, because the gov
lies and covers up stuff all the time! Bluebook and Gov documents of
Majestic 12, Roswell, etc were partially posted online quite a while back,
but much of that stuff was blotted out, hiding something. What do they have
to hide? The guy running the Black Vault has the most documents posted
online by the FOIA.
I'm not a believer or a non-believer, I just keep an open mind because its
fun sometimes and interesting like the lights in Phoenix, Holland, the
Belgium reports, Mexico, etc.
What about the Brahma concept, or the belief there is something there behind
the concept having to do with the field of time and space? Call it a
dimension or something that eclipses time and space? Brahma or the eternal
concept, that which we cannot understand or perceive. Its a concept that
goes beyond comprehension, words and thoughts, some call it the Brahma in
India, but not a religion, or a god, but a concept or existence on an
unknown dimension or plane, that is not subject to time and space, which I
can't explain, but its a eastern concept basically. Some also call it an
experience, or getting in touch with Brahman which monks do with Ohm. Things
which can only be experienced, but not explained. Simliar concepts exist in
Yoga and Zen. I am not a closed thinker, I like to listen to ideas, thoughts
and opinions on such things.
Randy
Randy
"Donald Munro" <fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48e12703$0$5119$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Some of those guys under the gorilla suits might, but some of those sighting
Randy
"Randy" <Ra...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:MJ6dnb_6GpPO0HzV...@sti.net...
>> Conclusion: There is no Bigfoot. People are delusional in their belief
>> systems. Just like there is no God or flying saucers yet people believe
>> in those delusions too.
>
Oh yeah, one more thing on the UFO thing. We had one of those encounters in
Atwater during the late 70's. Many people saw it, and there was a big
article in the paper about it. But what makes it interesting, is a good
friend of mine from high school rented a house only one block away, and the
sighting was interesting to me, because it happened only a block away from
my house during the day time. The kicker is, my friend was right there,
outside when it happened, and it scared the shit out of him. He is from an
air force family, so he doesn't get excited easy from seeing airplanes of
copters from the base, which Castle Air Force bas was still active at the
time I believe. What he told me was this. He saw a cigar shaped craft
hovering over the telephone lines for a while right in front of his house,
which made a humming sound, and also he noticed it attracted a great deal of
birds which followed it when it crossed the street. He got a first hand look
at this thing, and it was no plane or copter, but was very odd cigar shaped
craft that didn't seem to have any propulsion at all, but just moved slowly
with a humming sound. The neighbors across the street saw it, as did my
brothers best friend who also lives across the street from where it was.
This may be hard for you to believe, but their Mother, his sister, all of
the whole family said it landed in their back yard for a few brief moments
before it left the area very quickly. This was all documented by many
witnesses in the local paper in 1977 I believe it was.
You tell me what the hell that was? Because my friends Dad was an air force
pilot, and they said it was nothing like anything under wraps at Castle Air
Force base, and he said there is no way any known craft could move like
that.
These thing are interesting when they happen to you or close friends
firsthand.
Randy
SLAVE of THE STATE
Donald, Big Dumb Paul.
Big Dumb Paul, Donald.
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>
>>Don't you find it strange that out of all the large animals in the world,
>>only this one has never been photographed or shot by a hunter?
>
>
> Of course it seems that way, but there is a lot of photos and videos out
> there for so many years now. Lots of them have been called fake, many have
> not. The main one researchers or scientists have not completely dismissed is
> the Patterson film.
>
The Patterson film has been universally deemed a hoax. The guy who
helped pull it off was a make-up artist in Hollywood.
In looking at that film it appears to be a hoax. To wit, any creature
that wanders around in the Pacific Northwest and is that big and
distinct would easily be seen many times - no less often at least than
people see bears or wolves.
But in fact, we only have a tiny handful of sightings over 4 decades
compared to thousands for bear and wolves every month and NONE by
credible people (i.e. scientists, rangers, etc.)
Do you know how many photos and video there are of bear in the wild in
that same 40 year period? Hundreds of thousands of photos and frames of
video. Maybe millions.
Yet for a creature as large as a bear that wanders aimlessly around in
the Pacific Northwest - a place crawling with year-round avid hikers,
hunters, backpackers, skiers, and park rangers - we have nothing but a
grainy fucking clip from 1962. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
Ever hear of something called probability statistics?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>>Not a single skeleton or carcass ever found. Yet we have thousands of
>>dinosaur skeletons from hundreds of millions of years ago in museums all
>>over the world.
>
>
> They haven't been able to capture many really old skeltons like Lucie
> either, but Dino they have. Not too many of those giant birds either, or a
> lot of others, so the archives are incomplete, the land and the sea has not
> yet given up all her secrets.
All those examples you give are from extinct species that lived tens of
thousdands or millions of years ago. But Bigfoot, according to you, is
still alive.
Where's a Bigfoot carcass - don't these animals ever die?
Magilla
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
Bigfoot does exist. Why else would there be so many video recordings
of Bigfoot? Why else would there be so man people who have seen,
heard, or smelled Bigfoot? You can't just deny, deny, deny.
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>>As for the FBI, they obviously have no expertise in such matters.
>>
>>Caves that go "hundreds of miles" underground? What geologist told you
>>this nonsense? No mammal would ever do that, even if there were such a
>>cave (where in the Pacific Northwest and northern California are their
>>such deep caves?)
>
>
> Undiscovered caves, but without water, light, and breathable air, not
> possible. Water and air are often in underground caves, but I haven't
> studied anything about light. I don't know how light could exist in
> underground caves artifically, like in Journey to the Center of the Earth.
There's not a lot of "undiscovered caves." And most caves are subject
to flash flooding, intense heat and a lack of oxygen - inhospitable
conditions for mammals.
No mammal lives deep in a cave anyway, so why would Bigfoot? That's
like telling me you think a 40 foot Great White Shark lives at the top
of Mt. Hood in the snow "somewhere up near the summit but no one's ever
photographed it." It's just not biologically credible to talk nonsense
like that. It's obvious that whoever told you that has never thought
through the details of how ecologically inane that is when you have to
answer the specific questions of species-specific ecology.
You forgot to explain why would it matter that they live in a cave
anyway (obviously a reverse engineered invention to explain why it's
rarely sighted) when you would have to concede Bigfoot would still have
to spend the majority of its waking life outside in the forest during
the daytime hunting for food since there is nothing to eat in a cave and
Bigfoot is a creature of 500 pounds that would require massive
quantities of food to sustain its life (thus cancelling out the claim
that it is rarely sighted because it "lives in a deep cave").
Bears sleep in small caves too (albeit only 5-30 feet underground) and
hibernate for the entire winter. Yet they are seen all the time.
Thousands of sightings per day.
Also, a primate of Bigfoot's size would never grow to be that large
unless it served some distinct evolutionary advantage. A creature that
large would almost have to be classified as an apex predator, like a bear.
But according to you, it lives in a dark cave and runs from 150 pound
humans. If you go to Africa and see a 500 pound lion or a 7-ton
elephant, I guarantee it won't run from you in 9 out of 10 times. And
if it does, it's only because it had a bad experience with a poachers
and their high powered rifles.
Did you see any grizzly bears run from Timothy Treadwell? What exactly
is a 500 pound apex predator running from in the Pacific Northwest?
Nobody has ever even claimed they shot at a Bigfoot, let alone killed
one, so why would it be scared of a little human? Why would it hide in
caves from everything? What is a 500-pound Hominid-like creature doing
running from a 150 pound human in the Patterson film - it's surely not
running from humans or wolves or bears. No human has ever killed a
Bigfoot so the creature would have no learned reason to fear one.
Let me know when the picture is becoming clear.
Magilla
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Don't you find it strange that out of all the large animals in the
> world, only this one has never been photographed or shot by a hunter?
Ape,
You're forgetting all the OTHER large animals that have
never been photographed or shot by a hunter. The ones
you've never even heard of. Bigfoot is the dumb one
that keeps getting in trouble - the David Clinger of
cryptozoological species.
Now stop it with the primate-jealousy thing.
Ben
Kurgan Gringioni
> An animal the size of Bigfoot would have to spend almost all of its time
> hunting outside in the forest in daylight. It would be easy to see.
Dumbass -
I can't say if there is Bigfoot or not, but your rationalization is
incorrect.
Some of the biggest land animals on the planet are herbivores. Some
(hippopotomus for instance) graze at night.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>>Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die there
>>since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of their
>>waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that he would
>>only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
>
>
> Depends on intelligent and habit I guess. Where does Bigfoot go to die? Good
> question! Animals often wonder off to die somewhere remotely, even
> domesticated pets will wonder off to die somewhere remotely, if given half a
> chance.
>
No animal knows when they are going to die. Neither do humans. You are
ruling out that BigFoot would ever die from accidents or injury (falling
off a cliff, drowning, infection, a heart attack, in a forest fire,
etc.). Yet most individual wild animals die in these unpredictable ways.
It's obvious you are just making up answers to explain why a creature
that doesn't exist has never been sighted. Every answer you have is
just some retro-fitted grasp of desperation that defies everything known
in the vast ecological and behaviorial literature of similar species in
the primate kingdom.
It's like saying there's a species of bird that's never been seen before
because it lives in the lava of active volcanoes. I mean what should I
make of such a statement when you can't even tell me how it's feathers
could withstand the 2,600 degree heat unless the bird was made out of
solid nickel?
Perhaps you should get an ecologist to help formulate your explanations
to my questions so he can at least make sure your answers pass the laugh
test of these known ecological constraints.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>
>>Finally, nobody in the park service would vouch for such nonsense because
>>as field scientists, they know that the phenotypes of evolutionary biology
>>dictate that bipedal warm-blooded animals covered with thick fur with
>>stereoscopic vision do not live in caves. Bats that are blind and use
>>sonar live in dark caves, not primates with small eyes that see color
>>vision. That's right up there with saying a really huge shark lives at
>>the top of Mt. Hood buried in the snow.
>
>
> Well, I'm not hung up on the cave thing, but all these researchers and even
> some scientists think we might be getter closer to closing in on a Bigfoot,
> that's its just a matter of time. I want to believe at least a remote
> possiblity of it, because its fun, and if one is found, its going to be
> incredibly interesting to the whole world, dead or alive!
No scientist I know of believes in Bigfoot.
If you believe in Bigfoot and work at a university, I promise you will
never make tenure and you will be run out of the department in no time flat.
It's doubtful that such scientists number more than 10 in the entire
country.
Magilla
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> If you believe in Bigfoot and work at a university, I promise you will
> never make tenure and you will be run out of the department in no time flat.
Well, I kind of doubt that tenure was ever an option if he did work at a
university.
--
tanx,
Howard
I'll take the case!
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Donald Munro
>> > Those guys know the difference between bears and apes. So we got
>> > Bigfoot here! They say Bigfoot might be hiding in caves that go
>> > hundreds of miles underground, and maybe that's why no remains have
>> > ever been found! China and Russia both have these beasts in their
>> > records going back thousands of years! Is Bigfoot real or a hoax?
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Does he have an internet connection ? Does he ride a bike ? Does he post
>> to rbr ?
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Donald, Big Dumb Paul.
>
> Big Dumb Paul, Donald.
Ah so Bigfoot is a liberal:
Bigfoot is a liberal -> Bigfoot is gay -> Bigfoot doesn't reproduce
Your theory might even result in tenure.
Bill C
wrote:
When's Magilla season again, and is them good eatin'?
Bill C
MagillaGorilla
Okay, but they don't hide at night. Hippos are not really nocturnal
animals and they are easily visible during the daytime, just like
Bigfoot would be if he existed.
I wasn't trying to state that 100% of the daylight time by Bigfoot would
be spent hunting. What I meant was the majority of daylight hours of
Bigfoot would have to be spent in the forest.
So why would nobody see it? People see hippos. Hippos don't hide
during the daytime just because they do some grazing at night.
If you look at the eyes of both hippos and the cranial structure of the
supposed Bigfoot, neither would be well suited to have evolved for
nocturnal lifestyles.
Also, hippos are more active at night only to avoid the harsh African
sunlight near the river banks. They hang out in water to protect their
skin, much like elephants need to roll around in water and cover
themselves in mud.
There is no such harsh sunlight in the Pacific Northwest, so why would
Bigfoot live in a cave? What is it trying to escape?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Do you have any links to all these videos? Compare them to the amount
of video on bears or wolves and then ask yourself why Bigfoot has never
been videotaped by someone who knows how to use a video camera (as
opposed to the typical shaky, grainy 3 second clip that UFO "witnesses"
claim prove their sightings.)
I can tell you never went to college.
Go to your local university biology department and tell them what you
just told me and see what they tell you.
Magilla
Off The Back
> What is it trying to escape?
Stockers?
Ted van de Weteringe
The stock market?
MagillaGorilla
No dumbass, he's talking about the people who stock the shelves at Home
Depot.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 12:50 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>An animal the size of Bigfoot would have to spend almost all of its time
> >>hunting outside in the forest in daylight. It would be easy to see.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I can't say if there is Bigfoot or not, but your rationalization is
> > incorrect.
>
> > Some of the biggest land animals on the planet are herbivores. Some
> > (hippopotomus for instance) graze at night.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Okay, but they don't hide at night. Hippos are not really nocturnal
> animals and they are easily visible during the daytime,
<snip>
Dumbass -
From:
http://www.citruscounty-fl.com/animals.html
Hippopotamus Facts
Native to central Africa, these nocturnal mammals are commonly found
at or in deep water rivers with marshes and reeds. The average length
of a hippo is approximately 11 feet
<snip><end>
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
Now you are just being mean. I know Bigfoot is out there.
Just because you say otherwise is your problem.
--
Michael Press
Randy
I entertain the possibility of bigfoot, but like you, I want proof.
Recently, someone had what they said was a bigfoot carcass, as it was on the
news, but its unclear if that was a hoax of not. The news said it was
tested, and did not appear to be a known primate, but of unknown origin.
There were actually photos, so I don't know what the hell that was, but I
saw a flash somewhere that this was a hoax. I haven't read the full story on
this.
Randy
Randy
That's an interesting point, but Bigfoot should have better intelligent then
bears, and prefers to be reclusive I would think, hiding from mankind, as
where bears don't really fear man or the camera. I'm not saying there is a
bigfoot, but this should be a creature that uses its brains to live a life
apart. That's a different brain then a bear or a cougar. We don't know how
smart that sucker is. But its true there are a lot of photos and videos out
there, but how many are real is a good question. We didn't come into the
extremely lightweight videos cams until the last decade of so. Before that
typical tourist cam recorders were extremely bulky and heavy, required a
huge VCR tape in the loading shell. My Uncle had one, a I hated that big
heavy clunky beast! Today, its more likely soon, that if there is a bigfoot,
they will increasingly be caught on these tiny digital devices.
Randy
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Okay, but they don't hide at night. Hippos are not really nocturnal
> animals and they are easily visible during the daytime, just like
> Bigfoot would be if he existed.
>
> I wasn't trying to state that 100% of the daylight time by Bigfoot would
> be spent hunting. What I meant was the majority of daylight hours of
> Bigfoot would have to be spent in the forest.
>
> So why would nobody see it? People see hippos. Hippos don't hide
> during the daytime just because they do some grazing at night.
Hippos exist. I've never seen a hippo. I've never
seen a Bigfoot. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.
> There is no such harsh sunlight in the Pacific Northwest, so why would
> Bigfoot live in a cave? What is it trying to escape?
The overwhelming emptiness of tawdry bourgeois
existence. Bigfoot is a Goth.
Ben
Randy
It was in the news segment that entertained the idea of caves, but if that
were even true, it seems shallow caves would be the ticket, not deep caves,
where air and access is easier. Since Bigfoot would have intelligent, it
should be able to develop a fear complex of man different from other types
of encounters or observations other then just being shot at. You point about
not fearing humans is interesting, but I would like to hear more on that
from researchers. But if you notice in many documented encounters, Bigfoot
is not always said to be afraid of humans, but they usually are said to
disappear once encountered. That doesn't mean they are afraid, but leaving
the area quickly means they don't want to interact either.
The forests worldwide are incredibly huge, there are tons of places where
humans have never set foot before. Some places span hundreds of square miles
without any humans whatsoever in those areas, and remotely so, if at all.
Canada also has forests so vast, many places humans have never been, except
by plane.
Like I said, I am not a bigfoot believer or non believer, but if there is
one, I want to see it! Monster Quest has done quite a few segments on
Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch, Snowman, etc.
Randy
ps-Treadwell was just too cozy with bears. He probably got killed because he
brought that girl into their zone, but I can't prove that. He was aleady
accepted by the bears in that range, but not that girl. Of course bears
can't be trusted no matter what. I don't really accept the premise that he
was accepted by the bears either in that range, but certainly that girl gave
off scents that the bears were not familar with, unlike Treadwell.
MagillaGorilla
That's not totally correct. They're only partially nocturnal.
Nevertheless, my point wasn't that hippos are less nocturnal than "x",
but merely that having a partial (or total) nocturnal lifestyle would
not make it "invisible" during the daytime which is what dude was trying
to imply with the whole Bigfoot-cave thing.
I don't want to fight about hippos today. I don't have enough ground
troops available to start a new war given my numerous current wars
taking place in other threads.
But I might want to broach the subject of hippos a few weeks or months
from now.
Thanks,
Magilla
Randy
> Randy wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>>
>>>Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die
>>>there since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of
>>>their waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that he
>>>would only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
>>
>>
>> Depends on intelligent and habit I guess. Where does Bigfoot go to die?
>> Good question! Animals often wonder off to die somewhere remotely, even
>> domesticated pets will wonder off to die somewhere remotely, if given
>> half a chance.
>>
>
>
> No animal knows when they are going to die. Neither do humans. You are
> ruling out that BigFoot would ever die from accidents or injury (falling
> off a cliff, drowning, infection, a heart attack, in a forest fire, etc.).
> Yet most individual wild animals die in these unpredictable ways.
Have you ever had a pet, dog or a cat, which wondered off to die? I have had
several. They pick remote places to die, like a drainage pipe, a canal, a
grass reef bed, or hidden in bushes. They often go off somewhere to die. I
can't say they always do this, but often they do. I have had pets over the
years who have done this. They pick a place to die, if they can. If there is
a bigfoot, its quite likely they might have died from some of the causes you
suggest, but finding the remains is another question. I know remains
disappear pretty quickly with insects and predators, and even bones are
covered over by growth of grass and a thin layer of natural topsoil. They
just had a special on this recently, about how long it takes for medium
sized animal to decay and completely disappear from sight. It took very
little time with bugs and predators, but even the bones were covered over by
growth after several months. They used a deer or something like that for the
test. The point is, carcasses don't last long out in the elements. The bones
do, but they get buried under layers of growth fairly quickly.
>
> It's obvious you are just making up answers to explain why a creature that
> doesn't exist has never been sighted. Every answer you have is just some
> retro-fitted grasp of desperation that defies everything known in the vast
> ecological and behaviorial literature of similar species in the primate
> kingdom.
This is what the Bigfoot news clip revealed about the caves. I can't say for
sure if Bigfoot exists, scienitists mostly say no because they want proof,
researchers say yes, but they would now, wouln't they? Its like Area 51, if
they got the Space Ship, I want see it! Show us the little green men too!
However, scientific investigations are getting better on Bigfoot. If there
is one, we should see it soon, in our lifetime.
>
> It's like saying there's a species of bird that's never been seen before
> because it lives in the lava of active volcanoes. I mean what should I
> make of such a statement when you can't even tell me how it's feathers
> could withstand the 2,600 degree heat unless the bird was made out of
> solid nickel?
I don't know, but did you see what critters turned up just from one trip
deep into Borneo? It had never been done before, they found several critters
never seen before, and tons more new insects and bugs. Beside that big cat,
some kind of weird dog like creature.
>
> Perhaps you should get an ecologist to help formulate your explanations to
> my questions so he can at least make sure your answers pass the laugh test
> of these known ecological constraints.
>
>
> Magilla
I'm not saying there is a bigfoot, but I told you its fun to follow the news
of it. Its like UFO's in a way. No one can say for sure, but there has been
thousands of sightings, photos, and videos. Even Air Force vets believe in
UFO's. I can't say for sure, even Issaac Asimov said the Universe is bigger
then we can possibly imagine, and the idea that life is limited to Earth and
earth alone, seems far fetched to say the least. The world sure would be a
boring place without such beliefs and myths, real or not.
Randy
Randy
Kind of reminds me of the SETI peoject! They get ridiculed a lot!
MagillaGorilla
This makes no sense. Here's why.
Most sightings between animals that fear each other (and will kill the
other if in close proximity) are accidental and cannot be avoided simply
by tossing out the word "intelligence."
When a mountain biker is mauled to death by a cougar lying in wait, that
has nothing to do with the person not being intelligent. They were
simply caught off-guard. Same goes for humans and sharks and tigers and
crocodiles. Are you saying we are not intelligent simply because these
animals we fear not only can see us, but have actually tracked us
without our knowledge and killed thousands of people throughout the world.
Yet, somehow we've never killed a single Bigfoot - the only large animal
man has never even seen, let alone killed?
My point is that even if what you say is true (and it's not), you'd
still have thousands of accidental sightings that neither human or
Bigfoot could avoid through "intelligence." You make it sound like
Bigfoot never leaves his cave without infrared cameras and night goggles
and uses real-time satellite imagery to avoid every new camper or hiker
or hunter that happens to wander into Bigfoot's neck of the woods and is
always one step ahead of every single one.
Impossible.
Most people hate scorpions and poisonous snakes and sharks. So,
according to your "intelligence" avoidance logic, no snake or scorpion
or shark has ever seen a human because we are "intelligent" enough to
avoid them.
Doesn't pass the laugh test.
Keep 'em coming though. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Eventually the referee is going to step in and stop this slaughter.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:N5KdnZoC3cWrPnzV...@ptd.net...
>
>>Randy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>>>
>>
>>>>Not a single skeleton or carcass ever found. Yet we have thousands of
>>>>dinosaur skeletons from hundreds of millions of years ago in museums all
>>>>over the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>They haven't been able to capture many really old skeltons like Lucie
>>>either, but Dino they have. Not too many of those giant birds either, or
>>>a lot of others, so the archives are incomplete, the land and the sea has
>>>not yet given up all her secrets.
>>
>>
>>All those examples you give are from extinct species that lived tens of
>>thousdands or millions of years ago. But Bigfoot, according to you, is
>>still alive.
>>
>>Where's a Bigfoot carcass - don't these animals ever die?
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> I entertain the possibility of bigfoot, but like you, I want proof.
> Recently, someone had what they said was a bigfoot carcass, as it was on the
> news, but its unclear if that was a hoax of not.
"Unclear if it was a hoax or not.." You're kidding, right?
You are aware that the NY Times editors have intentionally not run a
single article about this carcass story and there was a person dressed
in a Bigfoot suit at the press conference mocking the people who
organized the press conference (most like some fraternity undergraduate
bio major).
I can't believe we could both look at the exact same set of facts and
you can conclude that it "wasn't clear" if it was a hoax or not.
I am absolutely clear about that Bigfoot carcass incident. And so is
the Associated Press:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/19/national/main4365238.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4365238
Magilla <-- an actual gorilla
MagillaGorilla
So then wouldn't it be easy to corner a Bigfoot - all you would have to
do is walk down some caves and eventually you'd find one sleeping -
where is it going to go? Even if the Bigfoot ran deeper into the cave,
you would still be able to find hair, leafy dens, remnants of food,
fecal matter, etc.
Where is all the forensic evidence to support a cave theory? You can't
just come up with a theory with no evidence to support it.
Also, cave exploring is a marginally popular outdoor activity these
days. Surely the people hunting for Bigfoot would know to look in
caves, no? Well, what did they find? Doesn't sound too diffuclt to me
to walk down a 30-foot cave with a flashlight.
Hardly a fail-safe strategy to avoid humans. Doesn't Bigfoot know
humans have flashlights? Or in the case of most people in here,
Fleshlights™.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
You could apply this exact same logic to bears and great white sharks
and lions and tigers and gorillas (like me) and yet people see thousands
of these creatures every month. Why would Bigfoot be any different?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:28GdnT_Wf_B1MXzV...@ptd.net...
>
>>Randy wrote:
>
> ps-Treadwell was just too cozy with bears. He probably got killed because he
> brought that girl into their zone, but I can't prove that. He was aleady
> accepted by the bears in that range, but not that girl. Of course bears
> can't be trusted no matter what. I don't really accept the premise that he
> was accepted by the bears either in that range, but certainly that girl gave
> off scents that the bears were not familar with, unlike Treadwell.
>
>
>
You may very well be onto something about that girl - Amy - contributing
to Treadwell's death. I like that theory a lot.
The one time he brings a chick, the bear kills him. Yet in 10 years of
camping there by himself, not a single attack.
She might have even been menstruating. Grizzly bears have a better
sense of smell than bloodhounds. So smelling blood in a tent would get
any bear riled.
And once riled, they are in feeding mode. It's a keg of dynamite looking
for an ignition source.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Telling you to go to talk to a Ph.d. about a science question is "mean?"
Magilla
Donald Munro
> From:
> http://www.citruscounty-fl.com/animals.html
>
> Hippopotamus Facts
>
> Native to central Africa, these nocturnal mammals are commonly found at or
> in deep water rivers with marshes and reeds. The average length of a hippo
> is approximately 11 feet
They also kill more people than lions, crocodiles or elephants. Getting
between them and their river is like being in the way when a fatty master
sees a pizza and doughnut buffet.
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>
>
>>Don't you find it strange that out of all the large animals in the world,
>>only this one has never been photographed or shot by a hunter?
>
>
> Of course it seems that way, but there is a lot of photos and videos out
> there for so many years now. Lots of them have been called fake, many have
> not. The main one researchers or scientists have not completely dismissed is
> the Patterson film.
>
>>Not a single skeleton or carcass ever found. Yet we have thousands of
>>dinosaur skeletons from hundreds of millions of years ago in museums all
>>over the world.
>
>
> They haven't been able to capture many really old skeltons like Lucie
> either, but Dino they have. Not too many of those giant birds either, or a
> lot of others, so the archives are incomplete, the land and the sea has not
> yet given up all her secrets.
>
>>As for the FBI, they obviously have no expertise in such matters.
>>
>>Caves that go "hundreds of miles" underground? What geologist told you
>>this nonsense? No mammal would ever do that, even if there were such a
>>cave (where in the Pacific Northwest and northern California are their
>>such deep caves?)
>
>
> Undiscovered caves, but without water, light, and breathable air, not
> possible. Water and air are often in underground caves, but I haven't
> studied anything about light. I don't know how light could exist in
> underground caves artifically, like in Journey to the Center of the Earth.
>
>>What does Bigfoot eat? If he's a herbivore, he would be seen grazing on
>>plants or trees, which do not grow in caves. If he's a carnivore, what
>>animals does he hunt?
>
>
> All good questions!
>
>>Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die there
>>since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of their
>>waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that he would
>>only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
>
>
> Depends on intelligent and habit I guess. Where does Bigfoot go to die? Good
> question! Animals often wonder off to die somewhere remotely, even
> domesticated pets will wonder off to die somewhere remotely, if given half a
> chance.
Yeah you're right - that explains why no human has ever seen a
domesticated dog or cat before.
Magilla
ronaldo_jeremiah
> That's an interesting point, but Bigfoot should have better intelligent then
> bears,
I bet Bigfoot have better intelligent then you.
-rj
MagillaGorilla
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cKudnTdRN5wVK3zV...@ptd.net...
>
>>Randy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net...
>>
>>>>Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die
>>>>there since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of
>>>>their waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that he
>>>>would only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on intelligent and habit I guess. Where does Bigfoot go to die?
>>>Good question! Animals often wonder off to die somewhere remotely, even
>>>domesticated pets will wonder off to die somewhere remotely, if given
>>>half a chance.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No animal knows when they are going to die. Neither do humans. You are
>>ruling out that BigFoot would ever die from accidents or injury (falling
>>off a cliff, drowning, infection, a heart attack, in a forest fire, etc.).
>>Yet most individual wild animals die in these unpredictable ways.
>
>
> Have you ever had a pet, dog or a cat, which wondered off to die?
I just explained to you that the majority of animals cannot predict when
they are going to die because they simply don't know until it's too late.
Magilla
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
Oh. So a big old Ph.d is better than me? I am supposed to believe
somebody just 'cause he got brainwashed by a bunch of academics
so he could spout a lot of high sounding nonsense about what is
and is not possible? I know Bigfoot is there and who are you to
just deny it? Can you _prove_ that Bigfoot does not live? No,
you cannot. Beware.
--
Michael Press
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
<http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1862/are-hippos-the-most-dangerous-animal>
It seems to me that most nocturnal animals do have eyes that are more highly
developed for seeing in the dark, but animals that live in deep caves tend to have
eyes that are minimized or vestigial. Anyway, the idea that there can be enough
Bigfoot critters around to actually meet up and reproduce (something that is
essential to the survival of any species) yet be so scarce that no one has seen them
is pretty damn silly.
--
tanx,
Howard
I'll take the case!
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
MagillaGorilla
In all things science, sure. Can you engineer a 767?
Magilla
Howard Kveck
ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All your intelligent are belong to us.
Kurgan Gringioni
> Randy wrote:
> > "MagillaGorilla" <magi...@zoo.com> wrote in message
Dumbass -
Just because humans don't have proof doesn't mean that something
doesn't exist.
For many years, it was rumoured that the jaguar had reinhabited
Arizona/New Mexico. They were orginally native to that area before
settlers wiped them out. There were many sightings, but no proof.
Someone finally got an image of one with a motion capture camera.
That's the only "proof" that exists. Still no carcasses, etc.
Not saying that Bigfoot is real. Just saying that we don't know
everything.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Fred Fredburger
Bigfoot thinks the people who think that "dogs are people too" are a
bunch of annoying dumbasses. Bigfoot is a cranky old guy.
Howard Kveck
Kurgan Gringioni <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just because humans don't have proof doesn't mean that something
> doesn't exist.
>
> For many years, it was rumoured that the jaguar had reinhabited
> Arizona/New Mexico. They were orginally native to that area before
> settlers wiped them out. There were many sightings, but no proof.
> Someone finally got an image of one with a motion capture camera.
> That's the only "proof" that exists. Still no carcasses, etc.
>
> Not saying that Bigfoot is real. Just saying that we don't know
> everything.
On occasion, new animals are discovered. Well, usually that means that science
gets its first look at them while it has been sort of familiar to the locals. But
these are usually small creatures. One example that doesn't quite fit this is Gray's
Monitor. Known from specimens collected in the 1800s, this 5 foot lizard went unseen
until it was rediscovered in 1977 just a few miles from Manila, Philippines.
Or this, from earlier this year:
<http://wellwhatdoyouknow.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/bbc-reports-new-mammal-discovery/>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4782352.stm
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 30, 12:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Randy wrote:
>>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Just because humans don't have proof doesn't mean that something
> doesn't exist.
>
Believe it or not it prety much does mean that. Technically you are
correct, but not from a practical standpoint.
Also, "sightings" of jaguars that are credible are considered proof.
The problem is the type of people who say Bigfoot exist are not credible.
Saying you saw a new species of catfish in a Lousiana bayou is a lot
different than saying you saw a 40-ton Loch Ness Monster in a closed
freshwater lake.
Magilla
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Anyway, the idea that there can be enough
> Bigfoot critters around to actually meet up and reproduce (something that is
> essential to the survival of any species) yet be so scarce that no one has seen them
> is pretty damn silly.
You obviously don't go to the same singles bars
as Big Dumb Paul.
Ben
carl...@comcast.net
>Dear Editor--I am 8 years old.
>Some of my little friends say there is no Bigfoot.
>Papa says, 'If you see it in The Sun, it's so.'
>Please tell me the truth, is there a Bigfoot?
>Randy O'Hanlon
>115 West Ninety-fifth Street
[By a regrettable coincidence, the second incarnation of the New York
Sun stopped publishing today, casting some doubt on its existence, but
what follows is just as sound as it was in 1897.]
Randy, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the
scepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except they see.
They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their
little minds. All minds, Randy, whether they be men's or children's
are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an
ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him,
as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth
and knowledge.
Yes, Randy, there is a Bigfoot. He exists as certainly as love and
generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give
to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the
world if there were no Bigfoot! It would be as dreary as if there were
no Randys. There would be no child-like faith then, no poetry, no
romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment,
except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood
fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Bigfoot! You might as well not believe in fairies! You
might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the caves during
hunting season to catch Bigfoot, but even if you did not see Bigfoot
coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Bigfoot, but that is
no sign that there is no Bigfoot. The most real things in the world
are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see
fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that
they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders
there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside,
but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest
man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever
lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can
push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and
glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Randy, in all this world there is
nothing else real and abiding.
No Bigfoot! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand
years from now, Randy, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he
will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
Dumbass: there is a pretty straightforward method of determining a
decisive presence or absence of a species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker#2005.2F2006_Florida_
reports
DNA or photographic evidence, and they mean photos good enough to
determine the species.
The hunt for the ivory-billed woodpecker is a pretty good example of a
sincere attempt to find the last remnants of a species in a scientific
fashion. The current conclusion: no decisive evidence of woodpecker
existence since 1944. "Sightings" since then have been rare and
inconclusive.
Mind you, this is for a bird we are certain did exist, and which has a
small chance of still existing in the wild.
The evidence for Nessie is basically a pile of nonsense photos and
nonsense sightings. It's good for the tourist trade, mind.
And as always, I can't prove the nonexistence of Nessie, or the
ivory-billed woodpecker, or undoped pro cyclists. All I can do is point
to the lack of evidence, and make some sketchy bets as to the prospects
for future searches
My bets: Nessie will never be found, the only way the ivory-billed
woodpecker is returning is if it's grown from DNA in a lab, and Bigfoot
is totally real:
http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/video-gallery/videos/AirplaneJump302-high.mpg
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
MagillaGorilla
Sing it, brother.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 12:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Randy wrote:
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Just because humans don't have proof doesn't mean that something
> > doesn't exist.
>
> Believe it or not it prety much does mean that. Technically you are
> correct, but not from a practical standpoint.
Dumbass -
We do not have a complete knowledge of all the species. As the article
below notes, certain groups are well studied, but even in those
groups, it's estimated there is still a small percentage that is
undiscovered. If you want me to come up with additional cites, I can.
From:
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html
How Many Species are There?
The number of known species is continually in flux as new species are
found, taxonomic categories adjusted, and redundancies recognized.
Compounding the problem is the fact that diversity is not evenly
distributed across species, regions, or the planet. Seventy percent of
the world's species occur in only 12 countries: Australia, Brazil,
China, Columbia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru,
and Zaire.
Current estimates of the total number of species on Earth range from 5
to 30 million, of which, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
notes approximately 2 million have been formally described.
Determining an accurate count is a challenging job because there is no
central registry for species. Often species that have been described
by scientists in one part of the world are also recorded and described
by scientists in another. It takes time and research to recognize
these redundancies, though there are several professional
partnerships, such as Species 2000, attempting to create a single
nomenclature and taxonomic registry.
Some species, such as many large mammal, butterfly, bird, plant, and
insect species, have been well studied. Over half of all described
species are insects, including nearly 300,000 known beetles. However,
the estimated number of insects on Earth is thought to be close to 8
million and, proportionally, scientists are closer to naming all plant
and vertebrate species. Little continues to be known about the
distribution and biology of vast numbers of species groups, including
arthropods, fungi, and nematodes.
With technological advances, scientists have also discovered a wealth
of new species in areas assumed to be barren, previously inaccessible
to humans. Researchers have only recently discovered that the deep
Antarctic seas are teeming with life. New species are also still being
discovered in relatively well populated areas; one study found 10,000
bacterial species in a single gram of Minnesota soil.
<end>
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
r15...@aol.com
> Yet for a creature as large as a bear that wanders aimlessly around in
> the Pacific Northwest - a place crawling with year-round avid hikers,
> hunters, backpackers, skiers, and park rangers - we have nothing but a
> grainy fucking clip from 1962. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
>
> Ever hear of something called probability statistics?
>
> Magilla
SW Colorado used to host a heckuva lot of grizzly bears. Almost all of
them were killed off before 1900 but not all. Every few decades
someone would get a glimpse of what they thought was a grizzly or even
kill a confirmed grizzly in SW Colorado/N. New Mexico wilderness. Most
people figured a bear killed in 1955 was the last griz in Colorado.
But 24 years later a hunting guide killed one in the process of being
mauled nearly to death by it. The bear was a mommy bear who had born
cubs. Chances are there are still a few grizzlies roaming around this
area, but there's been no confirmation of it for almost 30 years, and
25 years before that to the next most recent confirmed grizzly.
RE Bigfoot: I propose the creation of a Bigfoot preserve. This
preserve shall be located in the pristine wilderness of sw colorado,
where Bigfoot can roam with the ghost grizzlies without being hassled
by rangers and amateur videographers. Please send your checks to the
Bigfoot Foundation so we can begin the process of accumulating the
land needed for this very important project. Please act now. Bigfoot
needs your help.
r15...@aol.com
> You could apply this exact same logic to bears and great white sharks
> and lions and tigers and gorillas (like me) and yet people see thousands
> of these creatures every month. Why would Bigfoot be any different?
Chaka,
The woods where I regularly mtn bike for decades are crawling with mtn
lions. I know this because I see their shit and tracks and even
occasionally their deer kills all over the place. But I have never
seen one. This is simply because mtn. lions desire not to be seen by
me, and are extremely intelligent.
Robert
Director, Rocky Mountain Bigfoot Preserve
MagillaGorilla
But all those species are for the most part closely related to other
known species and all are very small in size or close in resemblance to
other known species.
Bigfoot would be the largest and most unique primate in the world! It's
just not credible.
And to compare not knowing Bigfoot exists with not knowing about an
as-yet-to-be discovered new species of mosquito in the Amazon rain
forest or a new species of 4-inch long lizard in the Gobi desert is
quite different.
Sure, there are tons of species we haven't discovered - especially in
the ocean.
But none of them are as fantastic (and ridiculous) as Bigdick. The
larger and more fantastic the species, the easier it is to find, and
conversely, the harder it is to claim it exists but simply has never
been documented.
What if I told you there's a new species of 6-ton elephant that only
lives in the women's restrooms at shopping malls. Would you say that's
just as plausible as the existence of a new species of 2-inch long
jellyfish that inhabits the lower depths of the Indian Ocean?
Well, that's what Bigfoot is - an elephant that supposedly lives in
fucking shopping malls. But yet nobody's even photographed it. It's
that friggin' ridiculous.
I mean why not just say that there's a species of wasp with a 400 foot
wingspan that weighs 200 tons, but we've never seen it because it only
flies at night?
Why stop there? How about a colony of Martians that live at the bottom
of Lake Tahoe and have the ability to morph into humans and go skiing in
Aspen?
At some point, I'm just gonna start doing roundhouse kicks on people in
here like some kind of bad David Carradine movie. And then all this
Bigfoot nonsense is gonna stop real quick.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
<snip>
Dumbass -
If it were biped (as is alleged), a 7 foot tall primate wouldn't be
any bigger than a big silverback gorilla.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla
<snip>
Gorillas move around by knuckle-walking. Adult males range in height
from 165-175 cm (5 ft 5 in – 5 ft 9 in), and in weight from 140–204.5
kg (310–450 lb). Adult females are often half the size of a
silverback, averaging about 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) tall and 100 kg (220
lb). Occasionally, a silverback of over 183 cm (6 ft) and 225 kg (500
lb) has been recorded in the wild.
<snip><end>
So the Silverbacks are 5'9", but they're walking on all fours.
310-450lbs. w/ the occasional 500 pounder. A 7ft. biped wouldn't be
any bigger than an African Silverback.
There's definitely enough food for them. The biggest brown bears in
North America (Alaskan Brown Bear) stand 10-11 ft. on their hind legs
and weigh 1000 lbs.
Not saying that Bigfoot is real. Just saying that it's not
scientifically impossible.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Ryan Cousineau
<b5696c4c-3cc4-4791...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"carl...@comcast.net" <carl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:45 pm, "Randy" <Ra...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >Dear Editor--I am 8 years old.
> >Some of my little friends say there is no Bigfoot.
> >Papa says, 'If you see it in The Sun, it's so.'
> >Please tell me the truth, is there a Bigfoot?
> >Randy O'Hanlon
> >115 West Ninety-fifth Street
>
> [By a regrettable coincidence, the second incarnation of the New York
> Sun stopped publishing today, casting some doubt on its existence, but
> what follows is just as sound as it was in 1897.]
>
> No Bigfoot! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand
> years from now, Randy, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he
> will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Dear Carl:
It was funnier when I did it about Fabrizio Mazzoleni.
Donald Munro
>> Bigfoot would be the largest and most unique primate in the world!
>> It's just not credible.
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> If it were biped (as is alleged), a 7 foot tall primate wouldn't be any
> bigger than a big silverback gorilla.
However it would probably have a bigger penis than a gorilla.
Donald Munro
>> > That's an interesting point, but Bigfoot should have better
>> > intelligent then bears,
ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>> I bet Bigfoot have better intelligent then you.
Howard Kveck wrote:
> All your intelligent are belong to us.
Such as they may not be.
Donald Munro
> Bigfoot thinks the people who think that "dogs are people too" are a bunch
> of annoying dumbasses. Bigfoot is a cranky old guy.
Better hope he doesn't start making parcel bombs in that cave.
Donald Munro
MagillaGorilla
Oh yeah, well a lot of mountain lions have been seen by other people
including rangers, scientists, wildlife photographers, videographers,
etc. I've seen the photos and video of them and so can you by using Google.
So how is your little PERSONAL ACCOUNT relevant to Bigfoot, which has
NEVER been photographed, shot, videotaped, or seen by anyone in the world?
Why don't you Google me all the Bigfoot photos and video and then
compare that with the Google results of mountain lion photos and then
tell me what's wrong with your little brain stumper here.
Thanks,
Magilla
bjwe...@gmail.com
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > The woods where I regularly mtn bike for decades are crawling with mtn
> > lions. I know this because I see their shit and tracks and even
> > occasionally their deer kills all over the place. But I have never
> > seen one. This is simply because mtn. lions desire not to be seen by
> > me, and are extremely intelligent.
>
> > Robert
> > Director, Rocky Mountain Bigfoot Preserve
>
> Oh yeah, well a lot of mountain lions have been seen by other people
> including rangers, scientists, wildlife photographers, videographers,
> etc. I've seen the photos and video of them and so can you by using Google.
>
> So how is your little PERSONAL ACCOUNT relevant to Bigfoot, which has
> NEVER been photographed, shot, videotaped, or seen by anyone in the world?
>
> Why don't you Google me all the Bigfoot photos and video and then
> compare that with the Google results of mountain lion photos and then
> tell me what's wrong with your little brain stumper here.
Dude,
Even I have seen a mountain lion (in the wild). Of course,
this does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist. You don't
see Bigfoot because Bigfoot, despite its David Clinger-esque
qualities, has a more well developed sense of self-preservation
than me, and spends its time hiding from the mountain lions.
Ben
Also, Bigfoot doesn't ride a mountain bike.
Bigfoot switched to a road bike since Assos
brought out non-baggy shorts in size XXXXL.
Bob Schwartz
> Also, Bigfoot doesn't ride a mountain bike.
> Bigfoot switched to a road bike since Assos
> brought out non-baggy shorts in size XXXXL.
You're saying Bigfoot races Masters?
Bob Schwartz
MagillaGorilla
If Bigfoot did exist, it would have to live in a tropical forest or
jungle, not the Pacific Northwest. What does Bigfoot eat in the winter
in Oregon - pine trees?
There's not enough leafy plants to sustain its energy needs.
Bears eat fish and other animals (mostly by scavenging carcasses of
already-deceased animals). Does Bigfoot kill other animals - if so
what? How does he catch a wolf or elk - surely a bi-ped cannot run as
fast as any of them. Does he hunt in packs? So nobody's ever seen four
or five 7-foot tall ape-like creatures running around the woods together?
Go try to catch any animal by running after them and see how far you
get. Not even Usain Bolt could catch the slowest deer on the planet.
Bi-peds are not animal hunters (unless they are capable of shooting a
rifle).
There's all sorts of ecological contraints and fossil records that shows
even if a creature like Bigfoot existed, it would have to live in a
jungle and be related to gorillas or chimps, and could therefore not be
in the Pacific Northwest. There are no gorilla-like fossils located
anywhere near the Pacific Northwest, so what species did it evolve from?
It should be obvious the location of Bigfoot is based on lies by idiots
with no ecological or biological knowledge who started the rumors and
had no idea about the illogical statements they were making and how even
a freshman undergraduate bio major could prove that they were all lies.
Bigfoot's size would also mean that he has to spend like 12 hours a day,
every day looking for food (regardless of whether he was a J-ME
carneyvore, omnivore, or herbivore). Therefore, somebody would have
seen such an animal by now, especially given its size and height (7 feet
tall).
So I completely agree with you that it is plausible that Bigfoot could
exist - but only under one condition: that its existence and
food-gathering lifestyle would dictate it would had to have been seen
tens of thousands of times in the last 2 decades and we would have tons
of photos of it. And I am positive some hunter would have bagged it by
now - those guys sit in trees wearing camoflage...bears can't even see
them. Hunters also use binoculars and rifle scopes that can see 1,500
yards in the distance upwind from game, well beyond the visual and
olfactory range of even bears and wolves.
So how come we haven't seen one or killed one by now?
So no, when you look at the details of what people are claiming, it's
not possible that Bigfoot exists anywhere in the world.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
If you're trying to imply that Bigfoot has a bigger penis than me - and
I think you are - then I'd like to schedule you for a dental appointment
at the Sausalito cafe this Friday.
It's time I started holding newsgroup posters "accountable" for their
statements they express on the Internet.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> Bears eat fish and other animals (mostly by scavenging carcasses of
> already-deceased animals). Does Bigfoot kill other animals - if so
> what?
<snip>
Dumbass -
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodiak_Bear
<snip>
Size
Few Kodiak bears have been weighed in the wild, but estimates for
exceptionally large males in the autumn range from 1,500 - 2,000
pounds.
<snip>
Emerging vegetation and animals that died during the winter are the
first foods bears use in the spring. As summer progresses a wide
variety of vegetation supplies nutritional needs until salmon return.
<snip><end>
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Randy
"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
news:eYydnTmRQ6CR73_V...@ptd.net...
> "Unclear if it was a hoax or not.." You're kidding, right?
>
> You are aware that the NY Times editors have intentionally not run a
> single article about this carcass story and there was a person dressed in
> a Bigfoot suit at the press conference mocking the people who organized
> the press conference (most like some fraternity undergraduate bio major).
>
> I can't believe we could both look at the exact same set of facts and you
> can conclude that it "wasn't clear" if it was a hoax or not.
>
> I am absolutely clear about that Bigfoot carcass incident. And so is the
> Associated Press:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/19/national/main4365238.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4365238
>
>
>
> Magilla <-- an actual gorilla
I think that is a different encounter then the one I read about. That
doesn't sound like the same one, but I would have to check this further. I
don't have much time now. The Husband of my best friend's sister died, and I
need to go check on funeral arrangments and prepare for a trip out of town
now.
Randy
MagillaGorilla
Here's how you can be 100% sure whatever incident you are talking about
was in fact a hoax - if it wasn't then it would be on CNN every single
day for the next 2 years.
Magilla
Donald Munro
>>>If it were biped (as is alleged), a 7 foot tall primate wouldn't be any
>>>bigger than a big silverback gorilla.
>> However it would probably have a bigger penis than a gorilla.
> If you're trying to imply that Bigfoot has a bigger penis than me - and I
> think you are - then I'd like to schedule you for a dental appointment at
> the Sausalito cafe this Friday.
I can't make it to California, but I've appointed LawBoy as my
surrogate. I'm sure you can arrange something with him.
Donald Munro
> Go try to catch any animal by running after them and see how far you get.
> Not even Usain Bolt could catch the slowest deer on the planet. Bi-peds
Actually Namibian bushman run after antelope for hours until the
antelope cannot run any further ie they have more endurance. That's
pretty much the same tactic used by wild dogs in Africa and wolves in
North America.
Donald Munro
>> Also, Bigfoot doesn't ride a mountain bike. Bigfoot switched to a road
>> bike since Assos brought out non-baggy shorts in size XXXXL.
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> You're saying Bigfoot races Masters?
Do DMT make a size 60 ?
MagillaGorilla
> On Oct 1, 9:17 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bears eat fish and other animals (mostly by scavenging carcasses of
>>already-deceased animals). Does Bigfoot kill other animals - if so
>>what?
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodiak_Bear
>
> <snip>
>
> Size
> Few Kodiak bears have been weighed in the wild, but estimates for
> exceptionally large males in the autumn range from 1,500 - 2,000
> pounds.
>
Dude, there are thousands of authentic Kodiak bear photos in existence
and a few in zoos. For Bigfoot there are ZERO photos and ZERO in zoos.
So your analogy is deceptive in that it tries to gloss over the only
details that matter.
Second, Kodiak bears looks an awful lot like a grizzly or brown bear and
its evolutionary diversion from those more common species is by no means
"shocking."
But Bigfoot's existence would be absolutely shocking o the scientific
community. What animal did Bigfoot evolve from? It looks NOTHING like a
gorilla. It looks like Chewbacca! Primates are the most well-studied
animal in the world and it is not possible that the largest primate in
the world would be still undiscovered in 2008, let alone in the leading
nation of scientists - the United States! You would have been better of
saying Siberia or the Kamchatka peninsula. But instead you chose a
region inhabited by 30 million people. That's 60 million surveilannce
cameras, and not one of which has ever seen one.
Not possible. It would be the equivalent of geologists finding a new
continent in the world that is twice the size of North Ameirca that was
"previously undiscovered."
Not possible. You might find a little 100 foot wide atoll in the South
Pacific that was previously undiscovered, but nothing even close to the
size of North America.
The details of Bigfoot matter. The larger and more incredible the
creature is, the less successful it will be in hiding its existence from
humans.
Also, animals don't hide from humans. They avoid humans. There's a big
difference. You people make it sound like Bigfoot thinks he's a fucking
fugitive on the lamb from a life rap and has been holed up somewhere for
the last 200 years.
But why would it do this when gorillas don't even do this? Why would
a 500-pound cavemen-like monkey hide from everything? If it's never
seen a person then how would it even know to fear a person?
And if it's seen a person, then that means it's not smart enough to
avoid being seen back by that same person. Or are you going to tell me
that Bigfoot has developed far more powerful binoculars than people have
invented and produces these in one of its many secret cave factories?
Bigfoot is an obvious lie invented by idiots and perpetuated by gullible
people who never studied biology, ecology, or evolution.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Most bears have to hibernate in the winter to survive. If they didn't
they would die because there's not enough food in the winter to sustain
them. Hibernation evolved to help the bear survive through seasons with
food shortages.
Now species like grizzlies and polar bears are more carnivores (polar
bears are totally carnivores) and therefore don't have to hibernate.
But black bears do not kill other animals for food, so they do have to
hibernate.
Are you telling me Bigfoot hibernates? (Hint: You should say "yes it's
possible" - that will help explain why it's never seen in the winter by
anyone, but would not explain the summer, fall, or spring).
But that would just be a trap because do you know how rangers hunt most
black bears to tag them and their cubs? They wait until they are
hibernating in their caves in the winter and early Spring, and they go
in and tranquilize them in their dens. Surely they could do the same
for Bigfoot.
In fact, caves are a horrible place to hide for any animal. When
rangers want to tag black bear cubs, that's where they go. And they
find tons of them. It's not even difficult.
So when somebody says "perhaps Bigfoot hides in a cave" it's an obvious
sign the person who made the statement is a non-scientist layperson
since a scientist would know caves would be a horrible place to hide (at
least from humans). Caves have one entrance and are surrounded by rock
walls - where the fuck are you gonna go? All you need to find one is a
fucking flashlight and some sneakers - but that's not possible for most
of you in here because you only own Fleshlights.�
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
> Dude, there are thousands of authentic Kodiak bear photos in existence
> and a few in zoos. For Bigfoot there are ZERO photos and ZERO in zoos.
<snip>
> But Bigfoot's existence would be absolutely shocking o the scientific
> community. What animal did Bigfoot evolve from? It looks NOTHING like a
> gorilla. It looks like Chewbacca!
<snip>
Dumbass -
If there are no photos of Bigfoot (from the first paragraph in your
post), how do you know that it looks like Chewbacca?
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <zuKdnTklRpHC6n_V...@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <E6qdnU4Rif-g2X_V...@ptd.net>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <dvydnXvsmPdisHzV...@ptd.net>,
> >>>>>MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Randy wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>This was pretty good clip done on our news a while back.
> >>>>>>>http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=6103350
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I've been remotely following this for years, because its fun and
> >>>>>>>interesting. A good point brought out from another source I read was people
> >>>>>>>don't live in the remote areas as much as they did in the old gold rush
> >>>>>>>days, and such. Today people pretty much live off roads and either in rural
> >>>>>>>areas with power, utilities and water, or in the cities, but very few live
> >>>>>>>way off the grid like they did in the old days. So there are less sightings
> >>>>>>>and stories then there were in the old days. But with population growth now
> >>>>>>>with seniors and people seeking more space in the mountains, sightings have
> >>>>>>>increased once again.
> >>>>>>>What I find interesting is the FBI print experts who examined footprints for
> >>>>>>>30 years, came out and said that Bigfoot footprint casks contain those same
> >>>>>>>fine lines as thumbprints do, and this cannot be fudged, at least they don't
> >>>>>>>think so. What's interesting to me, is the Wildlife, Fish and Game,
> >>>>>>>California department of Foresty, Sequoia park service have said that there
> >>>>>>>is a bi-ped, or some kind of primate in the area, from finding these
> >>>>>>>footprints so often, plus sightings.
> >>>>>>>Those guys know the difference between bears and apes. So we got Bigfoot
> >>>>>>>here! They say Bigfoot might be hiding in caves that go hundreds of miles
> >>>>>>>underground, and maybe that's why no remains have ever been found! China and
> >>>>>>>Russia both have these beasts in their records going back thousands of
> >>>>>>>years! Is Bigfoot real or a hoax?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Don't you find it strange that out of all the large animals in the
> >>>>>>world, only this one has never been photographed or shot by a hunter?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Not a single skeleton or carcass ever found. Yet we have thousands of
> >>>>>>dinosaur skeletons from hundreds of millions of years ago in museums all
> >>>>>>over the world.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>As for the FBI, they obviously have no expertise in such matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Caves that go "hundreds of miles" underground? What geologist told you
> >>>>>>this nonsense? No mammal would ever do that, even if there were such a
> >>>>>>cave (where in the Pacific Northwest and northern California are their
> >>>>>>such deep caves?)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What does Bigfoot eat? If he's a herbivore, he would be seen grazing on
> >>>>>>plants or trees, which do not grow in caves. If he's a carnivore, what
> >>>>>>animals does he hunt?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Also, just because he would live in a cave doesn't mean he would die
> >>>>>>there since he has to come out to hunt, which is what animals do most of
> >>>>>>their waking life. So why would he die only in a cave? The logic that
> >>>>>>he would only die in a cave clearly doesn't make sense.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Finally, nobody in the park service would vouch for such nonsense
> >>>>>>because as field scientists, they know that the phenotypes of
> >>>>>>evolutionary biology dictate that bipedal warm-blooded animals covered
> >>>>>>with thick fur with stereoscopic vision do not live in caves. Bats that
> >>>>>>are blind and use sonar live in dark caves, not primates with small eyes
> >>>>>>that see color vision. That's right up there with saying a really huge
> >>>>>>shark lives at the top of Mt. Hood buried in the snow.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Conclusion: There is no Bigfoot. People are delusional in their belief
> >>>>>>systems. Just like there is no God or flying saucers yet people believe
> >>>>>>in those delusions too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Bigfoot does exist. Why else would there be so many video recordings
> >>>>>of Bigfoot? Why else would there be so man people who have seen,
> >>>>>heard, or smelled Bigfoot? You can't just deny, deny, deny.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Do you have any links to all these videos? Compare them to the amount
> >>>>of video on bears or wolves and then ask yourself why Bigfoot has never
> >>>>been videotaped by someone who knows how to use a video camera (as
> >>>>opposed to the typical shaky, grainy 3 second clip that UFO "witnesses"
> >>>>claim prove their sightings.)
> >>>>
> >>>>I can tell you never went to college.
> >>>>
> >>>>Go to your local university biology department and tell them what you
> >>>>just told me and see what they tell you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Now you are just being mean. I know Bigfoot is out there.
> >>>Just because you say otherwise is your problem.
> >>
> >>Telling you to go to talk to a Ph.d. about a science question is "mean?"
> >
> >
> > Oh. So a big old Ph.d is better than me?
>
>
>
> In all things science, sure. Can you engineer a 767?
But can you prove Bigfoot is not real?
Huh? Notice you excised that question.
--
Michael Press
Bob Schwartz
> Is Bigfoot real or a hoax?
Dumbasses,
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> But why would it do this when gorillas don't even do this? Why would
> a 500-pound cavemen-like monkey hide from everything? If it's never
> seen a person then how would it even know to fear a person?
<snip>
Dumbass -
The reason is pretty obvious.
From:
http://monkeydaynews.blogspot.com/2005/11/largest-primate-that-ever-lived-lived.html
A gigantic ape, measuring about 10 feet tall and weighing up to 1,200
pounds, co-existed alongside humans, a geochronologist at McMaster
University has discovered.
<snip>
"The size of these specimens - the crown of the molar, for instance,
measures about an inch across - helped us understand the extraordinary
size of the primate," says Rink. Sample studies further revealed that
Gigantopithecus was an herbivore, feasting mainly on bamboo. Some
believe that the primate's voracious appetite for bamboo ultimately
placed him at the losing end of the evolutionary scale against his
more nimble human competition.
<snip>
Survival. Competition w/ humans is suspected to have wiped out quite a
few other hominid species. Neanderthals, for instance. They did fine
until Cro-Magnons started overlapping into their territory.
Some of your arguments are aimed at a Bigfoot believer. I'm not a
Bigfoot believer. I'm not a disbeliever either. I do believe that our
knowledge of the species on this earth is not complete. There might be
some surprises here and there.
There is a 65 million year gap in the fossil record for the Coelecanth
and lo and behold, some of them show up.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Michael Press
<rcousine-C4C993.19462130092008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The evidence for Nessie is basically a pile of nonsense photos and
> nonsense sightings. It's good for the tourist trade, mind.
>
> And as always, I can't prove the nonexistence of Nessie, or the
> ivory-billed woodpecker, or undoped pro cyclists. All I can do is point
> to the lack of evidence, and make some sketchy bets as to the prospects
> for future searches
>
> My bets: Nessie will never be found, the only way the ivory-billed
> woodpecker is returning is if it's grown from DNA in a lab, and Bigfoot
> is totally real:
>
I definitely go with hoax.
<http://www.unmuseum.org/nesshoax.htm>
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 7:09 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sep 30, 12:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Randy wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dumbass -
> >>
> >>>Just because humans don't have proof doesn't mean that something
> >>>doesn't exist.
> >>
> >>Believe it or not it prety much does mean that. Technically you are
> >>correct, but not from a practical standpoint.
> >
> But all those species are for the most part closely related to other
> known species and all are very small in size or close in resemblance to
> other known species.
>
> Bigfoot would be the largest and most unique primate in the world! It's
> just not credible.
Most unique.
> And to compare not knowing Bigfoot exists with not knowing about an
> as-yet-to-be discovered new species of mosquito in the Amazon rain
> forest or a new species of 4-inch long lizard in the Gobi desert is
> quite different.
>
> Sure, there are tons of species we haven't discovered - especially in
> the ocean.
>
> But none of them are as fantastic (and ridiculous) as Bigdick. The
> larger and more fantastic the species, the easier it is to find, and
> conversely, the harder it is to claim it exists but simply has never
> been documented.
>
> What if I told you there's a new species of 6-ton elephant that only
> lives in the women's restrooms at shopping malls. Would you say that's
> just as plausible as the existence of a new species of 2-inch long
> jellyfish that inhabits the lower depths of the Indian Ocean?
>
> Well, that's what Bigfoot is - an elephant that supposedly lives in
> fucking shopping malls. But yet nobody's even photographed it. It's
> that friggin' ridiculous.
Its disguised as a towel dispenser. Who's ridiculous now?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
<http://www.penissizedebate.com/page11_gorilla-chimpanzee.htm>
But if it helps, 38 mm sounds better than inches.
--
Michael Press
Ted van de Weteringe
This thread is surreal.
MagillaGorilla
Because that's what all the handful of jackasses who claim to have seen
it say and that's what the Patterson film shows - the ONLY film.
And it's name - Bigfoot - comes from the huge tracks that would show a
bi-pedal animal of that size (all those tracks are hoaxes too).
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
That's not shocking because:
1.) Except for it's larger size, it's nearly identical to a gorilla.
Bigfoot bears no resemblance to any current or past species of primate.
2.) A gigantic ape of 1200 pounds is like a Grizzly Bear that weighs
1200 pounds compared to a black bear that weighs 250 pounds. It's
hardly surprising to find such a species existed.
3.) This ape was not bi-pedal. Bigfoot is bi-pedal. In order to evolve
to bi-pedal, you have to change your entire evolutionary lineage, your
diet, your hunting regime...it takes hundreds of thousands of years and
means there would be lots of intermediary fossils showing that change.
Yet we have found NOTHING from even a related species to Bigfoot. How
did Bigfoot come into existence given we have found no fossil evidence
of anything it could have even evolved from?
4.) These gigantic apes lived for a million years in SOUTHEAST ASIA,
where I would expect them live (in jungles). Bigfoot lives where no
other primate lives and where you would not expect to find a primate -
in a seasonal forest with snow and cold rain. Even snow monkeys require
hot water of volcanoes to live.
5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
million years ago. No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
yet it's supposedly still alive?
There is no other animal of comparable size to Bigfoot that has never
been discovered.
6.) This gigantic gorilla you cite was probably easy to find and seen
thousands of times when it lived. Bigfoot is fucking invisible despite
the fact that it supposedly lives in an area inhabited by 30 million
people with digital cameras, cell phone cameras, and tens of thousands
of hunters.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
And this would make Bigfoot extremely easy to see if he ran 5 miles
through the forest after moose or deer, don't you think?
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> 5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
> million years ago. No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
> yet it's supposedly still alive?
Dumbass -
They only have a handful of bones from Gigantopithecus. A few
jawbones. They extrapolated the size based upon it's similarity to
other primates' jaw structures, save for it's massive size.
The fossil record is remarkably incomplete. There are holes all over
the place. There are many, many species of whom we possess no fossil
record. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
MagillaGorilla
> On Oct 1, 7:32 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
>>million years ago. No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
>>yet it's supposedly still alive?
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> They only have a handful of bones from Gigantopithecus. A few
> jawbones. They extrapolated the size based upon it's similarity to
> other primates' jaw structures, save for it's massive size.
Right, because it existed a million years ago. But Bigfoot is
supposedly still alive and individuals would be dying every day. Why
would its skeleton be more difficult to find than, say, a dead moose or
grizzly bear in that same part of the country? Hikers and rangers find
those all the time. Why does Bigfoot's carcass and skeleton simply
vanish into thin air?
So your comparison with an extinct species is misleading. Your analogy
should be with bear, deer, moose, and wolf skeletons. Ask yourself if
you think scientists have any such skeletons? [Hint: there are thousands
of these animals in zoos all across the country - how come Bigfoot isn't
in a single zoo?)
Whatever reason you come up with simply doesn't work when you apply it
to bears, wolves, deer, or moose. That's the problem with your logic.
Why does Bigfoot require its own special answers to all these questions
that no other known species has - it's just a fucking primate for
Christ's sake!
>
> The fossil record is remarkably incomplete.
Only for extinct species that lived hundreds or tens of millions of
years ago (and almost all marine animals). But the fossil record is not
"remarkably incomplete" for currently living terrestrial organisms, let
alone 500 pound primates that supposedly still lives in the continental
United States.
Face it, if Bigfoot in fact existed, he would simply be another zoo exhibit.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
It's only surreal if you believe in the hairy bastard. I don't.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 7:32 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
> >>million years ago. No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
> >>yet it's supposedly still alive?
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > They only have a handful of bones from Gigantopithecus. A few
> > jawbones. They extrapolated the size based upon it's similarity to
> > other primates' jaw structures, save for it's massive size.
>
> Right, because it existed a million years ago. But Bigfoot is
> supposedly still alive and individuals would be dying every day. Why
> would its skeleton be more difficult to find than, say, a dead moose or
> grizzly bear in that same part of the country? Hikers and rangers find
> those all the time. Why does Bigfoot's carcass and skeleton simply
> vanish into thin air?
<snip>
Dumbass -
For the same reason we haven't seen any of that giant shrew that
Howard posted. Or the ivory billed woodpecker.
They live where people don't.
I'm not saying that Bigfoot exists. I do think you have too much
belief in how much humans know about the natural world.
"I am only a child playing on the beach,
while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me"
- Isaac Newton
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
r15...@aol.com
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 12:51 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>You could apply this exact same logic to bears and great white sharks
> >>and lions and tigers and gorillas (like me) and yet people see thousands
> >>of these creatures every month. Why would Bigfoot be any different?
>
> > Chaka,
>
> > The woods where I regularly mtn bike for decades are crawling with mtn
> > lions. I know this because I see their shit and tracks and even
> > occasionally their deer kills all over the place. But I have never
> > seen one. This is simply because mtn. lions desire not to be seen by
> > me, and are extremely intelligent.
>
> > Robert
> > Director, Rocky Mountain Bigfoot Preserve
>
> Oh yeah, well a lot of mountain lions have been seen by other people
> including rangers, scientists, wildlife photographers, videographers,
> etc. I've seen the photos and video of them and so can you by using Google.
A roommate of mine once saw one taking a dump. The thing is there are
hundreds upon hundreds of mtn lions known to exist in Colorado alone
but it's very rare to see one unless they're coming around to eat
suburban housecats and poodles.
Howard Kveck
Kurgan Gringioni <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 7:47�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > > On Oct 1, 7:32 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
> > >>million years ago. �No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
> > >>yet it's supposedly still alive?
> >
> > > Dumbass -
> >
> > > They only have a handful of bones from Gigantopithecus. A few
> > > jawbones. They extrapolated the size based upon it's similarity to
> > > other primates' jaw structures, save for it's massive size.
> >
> > Right, because it existed a million years ago. �But Bigfoot is
> > supposedly still alive and individuals would be dying every day. �Why
> > would its skeleton be more difficult to find than, say, a dead moose or
> > grizzly bear in that same part of the country? �Hikers and rangers find
> > those all the time. �Why does Bigfoot's carcass and skeleton simply
> > vanish into thin air?
> For the same reason we haven't seen any of that giant shrew that
> Howard posted. Or the ivory billed woodpecker.
>
> They live where people don't.
That's true almost all the time. The other times, the animal is reclusive enough
or few enough in numbers to simply miss being noticed. The other example I gave
earlier, Gray's Monitor, fits into that category. When it was discovered in 1977 just
a few miles from Manila, they thought it was a new species but an examination of the
records and holotype specimens showed that it had been discovered long before. But
there was a gap of about 150+ years when none were seen. It isn't like the lizard is
small, either - they're almost 5 feet long. But I think that it could be not all that
hard to miss a lizard that size if it's arboreal, lives in deep forest and almost
entirely herbivorous. I can't say the same about something the size of what Bigfoot
is alleged to be. It's possible that a carcass that size could go undetected -
scavengers would tear it up and in areas of deep forest, the rest could get overgrown
and hidden prety quickly. I have strong doubts that it happens that every single
specimen of Bigfoot that dies would vanish like that. The likelihood of that
occurance being 100% is 50/50, er, I mean pretty slim.
> I'm not saying that Bigfoot exists. I do think you have too much
> belief in how much humans know about the natural world.
I completely agree with that.
--
tanx,
Howard
I'll take the case!
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
MagillaGorilla
What, is this some kind of a analogy that impresses crack addicts?
I can go see a mountain lion in almost any zoo. And there are thousands
of photos online. Let's compare that to Bigdick - no photos and not a
single one in a zoo. Yet you make it sound like they are exactly the
same in terms of "rare" sightings. They are not.
A cougar is stealthy because he's a J-ME carnivore. Bigdick would be a
herbivore/omnivore and would have less need to be stealthy. They graze
on bushes, shrubs, leaves, and grass. That's a completely different
lifestyle that does not lend itself to hiding from 30 million people for
4 decades. Do cows and moose hide from people?
Also, the California state police and fish & wildlife routinely use
infrared cameras in helicopters to locate and trap/shoot mountain lions.
Yet they've never seen a Bigdick.
What's wrong with this picture?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Oct 2, 7:47 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 1, 7:32 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
>>>>million years ago. No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
>>>>yet it's supposedly still alive?
>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>
>>>They only have a handful of bones from Gigantopithecus. A few
>>>jawbones. They extrapolated the size based upon it's similarity to
>>>other primates' jaw structures, save for it's massive size.
>>
>>Right, because it existed a million years ago. But Bigfoot is
>>supposedly still alive and individuals would be dying every day. Why
>>would its skeleton be more difficult to find than, say, a dead moose or
>>grizzly bear in that same part of the country? Hikers and rangers find
>>those all the time. Why does Bigfoot's carcass and skeleton simply
>>vanish into thin air?
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> For the same reason we haven't seen any of that giant shrew that
> Howard posted. Or the ivory billed woodpecker.
I hate to tell you, but we did see the Ivory billed woodpecker when it
was alive. However it went extinct and since then has never been seen
(extinct = cannot see alive). Did Bigdick go instinct? No.
So what kind of jibberish analogy is this?
Fuck the shrew comparison too. There are tons of shrew species. But no
other Bigdick species.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Oct 2, 7:47 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 1, 7:32 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>5.) Fossils of this animal were found despite it going extinct over a
>>>>million years ago. No bones or fossils of Bigfoot have ever been found,
>>>>yet it's supposedly still alive?
>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>
>>>They only have a handful of bones from Gigantopithecus. A few
>>>jawbones. They extrapolated the size based upon it's similarity to
>>>other primates' jaw structures, save for it's massive size.
>>
>>Right, because it existed a million years ago. But Bigfoot is
>>supposedly still alive and individuals would be dying every day. Why
>>would its skeleton be more difficult to find than, say, a dead moose or
>>grizzly bear in that same part of the country? Hikers and rangers find
>>those all the time. Why does Bigfoot's carcass and skeleton simply
>>vanish into thin air?
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> For the same reason we haven't seen any of that giant shrew that
> Howard posted. Or the ivory billed woodpecker.
>
> They live where people don't.
>
> I'm not saying that Bigfoot exists. I do think you have too much
> belief in how much humans know about the natural world.
Not a single reputable scientist in the world believes in Bigdick. They
ALL believe it does NOT exist.
Save your esoteric quotes for a more worthy cause.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
There have been a handful of ivory bill sightings the last few years
by reputable people.
The sightings have not been confirmed by photos, carcasses or any hard
evidence. Skeptics think they may have seen another species. It's
still up in the air.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> Not a single reputable scientist in the world believes in Bigdick. They
> ALL believe it does NOT exist.
Dumbass -
You're clearly not a scientist.
True scientists don't believe one way or another. They examine the
evidence and come to conclusions. They also realize we don't have all
the evidence. They have to keep open minds.
Here's some more to contradict your statement. Keep in mind that I
don't believe in Bigfoot. I don't disbelieve either. I don't know.
From:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html
Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 23, 2003
It's been the subject of campfire stories for decades. A camera-
elusive, grooming-challenged, bipedal ape-man that roams the mountain
regions of North America. Some call it Sasquatch. Others know it as
Bigfoot.
Thousands of people claim to have seen the hairy hominoid, but the
evidence of its existence is fuzzy. There are few clear photographs of
the oversized beast. No bones have ever been found. Countless
pranksters have admitted to faking footprints.
Yet a small but vociferous number of scientists remain undeterred.
Risking ridicule from other academics, they propose that there's
enough forensic evidence to warrant something that has never been
done: a comprehensive, scientific study to determine if the legendary
primate actually exists.
"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced
there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff
Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State
University in Pocatello.
<snip><end>
Once again, I'm not saying that Bigfoot is real. I'm saying there is
no scientific consensus.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.