BIGFOOT real or not?

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Oldvol75, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. OrangeEmpire

    OrangeEmpire Take a chance, Custer did

    Paperwork is an understatement.

    Suit/tie unmarked car is a nice gig
     
  2. IP

    IP Super Moderator

  3. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Panda bears have a better chance of having existed in nature in North America than Gigantopithecus, for the record.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Giganto isn't actually bigfoot. Giganto more than likely wasn't even bipedal. Very little is known about them. They are just a starting point for a possible series of evolutionary changes.

    Hell, it isn't even believed Giganto crossed the land bridge.

    But I agree, Pandas have a better chance of existing natively in North American than Giganto, who likely went exist tens of thousands of years before humans migrated into North America from Asia.
     
  5. IP

    IP Super Moderator


    [​IMG]
     
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Some evidence does not equate to absolute fact. Don't be stupid. You are better than that.

    I should probably explain, though, just in case you aren't. My personal views are the bottom. The views of many of the "Big Foot Community" is the top.

    But if you would like to make a point, we can have this discussion, again.
     
  7. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    As an addendum, in case you are struggling, Giganto is the model for the following statement you made:

    Giganto is your model for something very much like a bigfoot.
     
  8. Oldvol75

    Oldvol75 Super Bigfoot Guru Mod

    I just like to know what some of these people are seeing. If there are Bigfoots, I'd sure like to see one!
     
  9. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    [​IMG]

    You have now seen all there is to see. Real or not, wish that dude played for Tennessee.

    Edit: The mammaries make me think female. Or at least female bra stuffed with bowling balls.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2012
  10. Oldvol75

    Oldvol75 Super Bigfoot Guru Mod

    Looking at some of the new enhanced photos that they have done on this footage, if its a man in a suit, thats one high dollar suit!
     
  11. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    There are lots of little interesting videos and images. I like this one:

    [​IMG]

    Which is likely a mangy black bear.

    I also like the Georgia police dash cam video (Big Foot Caught On Police Dash Cam. - YouTube), which I think is either them playing a prank (which has happened before in Georgia...) or some idiots playing night paintball and wearing a ghillie and a pack.
     
  12. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    How is a giant quadripedal orangutan who exclusively fed on bamboo in Southeast Asia "very much like" bigfoot? You might as well use a gorilla, it'd be closer.
     
  13. OrangeEmpire

    OrangeEmpire Take a chance, Custer did

    If I start a Loch Ness Monster thread........be as popular?
     
  14. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    OE, if someone tells me I am a bad scientist and ignorant person for dismissing the possibility of the existence of Nessie or Champ, I will be hitting that thread just as much.
     
  15. OrangeEmpire

    OrangeEmpire Take a chance, Custer did

    It has been a while, dont remember my toos pub loch ness monster thread?

    Pics of fake nessys evovled into pics of people.....

    :)
     
  16. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    TOOS is a very distant memory.

    Yes, I would visit a thread like that too.
     
  17. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    I can't believe they tried to limit the OE
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    To distinguish between "Community" views and my own, I'll try to be more clear. That is my fault.

    The larger Bigfoot Community believes Giganto is some marker for Bigfoot, but they also believe Giganto is bipedal, and did not eat exclusively bamboo, or at least its ancestor (through mutation) was bipedal and did not eat exclusively bamboo.

    As to my own views: Giganto was most likely not bipedal. We have some teeth, a jaw and not much else. I'm not even sure if there is a fully formed hand. This would help. Pandas, as you know, have what is "almost" like a digit on their hands that allows them to better grasp bamboo. If we had Giganto's hand, we could see if there were similarities. The examination of the teeth is interesting, and given the location, it probably was on an exclusively bamboo diet.

    I also see it as a possible transition species. For whatever reason, Giganto died out. So there are two ways to look at it, extinction wise. It entered a reproductive decline, similar to that seen with Cheetahs and Pandas, and thus was out competed by a stronger species... or it was merely a transition species. The greater Bigfoot community wants it to be a transition species. The more probable explanation is that it died out due to reproductive issues, loss of food source or habitat, with reproductive isolation being probably more likely.

    But the discussion of transition from Giganto to Bigfoot is along the same lines as our own human lineage.

    Can you map out the entire transition from our common ancestor to homo sapien sapien? You can piece it together, and offer scientific theory as to the transition, but you can't map the entire transition. That is rather like the argument of the greater Bigfoot community for Giganto to Bigfoot. The glaring difference, obviously, is the lack of evidence for a scientific theory on the transition, which makes it highly, highly improbable.

    So like I said, Giganto, based on speculation by the community, is your common ancestor for Bigfoot, not actually Bigfoot. If that helps clear it up at all. It is an attempt to trace a known species to a currently speculative species, when absolutely nothing is known about the later, and very little is known about the former. If you look into the fossil record on Giganto, you won't find much. And what is known is only comparative to the closest similar species we have on record. It is essentially a study in the WHIPPO hypothesis, but obviously applied to this situation.

    Be nice if more could be found about Giganto, though. But until then, you are taking the study as a comparison, based on probability, and nothing more. Which is in itself a model of evolutionary biology.
     
  19. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    pj imo iyam jmo
     
  20. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I'm not saying you are a bad scientist, I'm saying you are applying science to a non-science topic, which is a bad practice for scientists.

    Bigfoot is fantasy. You can't apply science to fantasy, because science deals with observation. This is why science can't disprove religion, and nor should it try.

    My issue is solely with you crossing that line. If you want to echo the opinion of nearly every scientist in existence and say there is no scientific evidence to support a large, bipedal primate, known as Bigfoot, then that is fine. But attempting to use science in the manner you are presenting is applying science to an area that it does not work in.

    The current view is that Bigfoot does not exist, because there is little to no evidence, and almost no scientific evidence to suggest its existence. This is a scientific view. It relies solely on science.

    The idea that Bigfoot does exist does not rely solely on science, and is thus not science.
     

Share This Page