Daemonfoe wrote:willease666 wrote:2. No skeletal remains which might be a 'Bigfoot' have been recovered and submitted to an officially recognised museum or university for analysis. Vague claims about bones in the woods are hardly reliable evidence.
Challenge: Find the skeletal remains of a bear in the woods.
willease666 wrote:Daemonfoe wrote:Really? Seems a bit of a side track.
A Sasquatch commercial side tracks a Bigfoot thread? Get lost junior.
Technically yes. It's a commercial, not an investigation.
Challenge completed. Now compare the number of bear remains found to the number of bear sightings, then compare to the number of Bigfoot sightings.
willease666 wrote:1. No 'Bigfoot' has ever been killed or captured and properly examined at an officially recognised museum or university. Until that happens, it's reasonable to assume that all sightings are either intentionally faked or are misidentifications of other creatures.
2. No skeletal remains which might be a 'Bigfoot' have been recovered and submitted to an officially recognised museum or university for analysis. Vague claims about bones in the woods are hardly reliable evidence.
3. There is no reliable photograph of a 'Bigfoot' and - in an age where everyone and his brother have digital cameras and Photoshop - it's much too easy to fake one. Even some of the old photos, and the famous cine-camera footage, are a bit dubious. People who try to convince us that a blurry lump filmed from 500m away at twilight is actually 'Bigfoot' aren't really helping their case.
4. None of the alleged 'Bigfoot' hair and droppings have produced reliable DNA suggesting what they are. This may be due to contamination by the people bringing them in, but saying 'It's because Bigfoot is so closely related to humans' is a bit of a cop-out.
5. No one has ever run down a 'Bigfoot' in their car, van or truck. Given the quantity of squashed wildlife which litters the roads, and the ever increasing amount of traffic, it does seem a bit odd that no-one has flattened one of these creatures.
6.The increasing human population in areas where 'Bigfoots' might live should - logically - have resulted in more sighting and greater contact with people as we encroach on their territory, but I'm not aware that this has happened, as you might expect with wolves, bears, deer, etc.
7. No-one has - to my knowledge - explained where 'Bigfoot' fits into the eco-system of the area where it lives or, for that matter, found out what it eats.
8. It's such an easy thing to fake - a furry suit and a video-camera are all you need - that there must be a great temptation among people of a certain mentality to try it.
I'm not going to get into it with Daemonfoe because the points I have raised should put the Bigfoot myth to rest. If you want to believe such an animal exists, good for you. Prove it, otherwise...
However, there is far too much anecdotal evidence
to suggest something other than bears and people in suits
are running around the pac nw, canada, alaska and other places.
And..most importantly, myths are ALWAYS...
ALWAYS rooted in truth.
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...
willease666 wrote:I'm not going to get into it with Daemonfoe because the points I have raised should put the Bigfoot myth to rest. If you want to believe such an animal exists, good for you. Prove it, otherwise...
I'm only debating the issues with point #2. I'm not into the whole circular argument thing anymore.
- Related topics
- Last post