I never said that it was a misidentified bear print.
That is what you said and then I replied that I never said YOU said that. Yes, I said it! You did not and I never said you did which is what you implied in the post I replied to, that I said you said it. Is that clear enough for you?
And you're reading more into things then you really should be. My mind IS open to the possibility of big foot and other things, whereas your's clealry is not. Where did I say "big foot is real?" Please point that out to me. I'm trying to discuss this topic with you nicely, but it's getting hard. Your mind is clearly made up there is no big foot out there whereas, like I said, mine is open to the possibility. That's not me saying "big foot exists," that's me admitting I don't know but that there could be something out there and I won't close myself off to that possibility until there is proof there is no such thing as big foot. All the sighthings couples with the prints make it hard to say for a fact that there is nothing out there.
As for your scientific part, I'm not a scientist but I know very well animals can be, and are, elusive at times, so it makes perfect sense to me. Anyone who knows animals would know this and big foot, if they exist, is an animal so is not an exception. I don't have a problem with this.
I don't practice religion thank you. And by the way, that statement makes no sense! "Despite there being no indisputable evidence, my mind is made up?" What does that even mean? What evidence is there to say for a fact there are no big foot? Dead wildlife isn't always found because other wildlife eat them. Wolves crack open bones to eat the marrow and in so doing can scatter the bones, so can birds by picking at the leavings. I believe Pumas/Cougars/Mountain Lions(take your pick on the name) also eat bone marrow. If broken up this way, out in the middle of the forest, how likley is it something would be found? After a while, bones become brittle and crack up, can get buried by nature and probably many other things I can't think of at this moment. This is reason enough that bodies haven't been found(if there is something out there). You obviously don't know much about wildlife if you're on that kick. There is no definitive proof either way, so you can't say for a fact big foot does not exist, like I have not said for a fact it does exist.
Minds are like books, they only function when open.
reply
share
mollys-lips
12 years ago
First off, if I say that the footprints are frequently identified and you come back that the only possibility for misidentification is bear, then you are saying that the misidentified prints that I was referring to were bear prints. But that is really neither here nor there...
You have it, excuse the language, ass-backwards. It is never, ever up to someone to prove that something does not exist. I cannot prove that the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc do not exist but that doesn't mean that they are assumed real until I prove otherwise. The claim is (and you do believe...you said several times, especially with the prints that "something" must be going on and are dismissing all logical explanations of them...but if you prefer then I'll use more general language) that there is a large, widely dispersed breeding population of huge hairy apes out there that nobody has able to catch on tape for more than a few seconds, that nobody have found and biological evidence for. The burden of proof is on the believers to show that it exists.
How did I know that your response to my claims about no body would be that the bones are scattered by other animals, etc? You are correct that not every dead animal is found but if the population is as large as it must be, then the odds that something has never been found are simply too long to take seriously. There are example upon example, thousands of bear, mountain lion, deer, fox, lion, tiger, bear,chimp, gorilla carcasses that have been found...either whole or partial. There is not a single bone in the entire world that can be identified as a bigfoot bone. On top of that, there isn't even evidence of great apes in the fossil record in North America.
I absolutely am familiar with wildlife, having grown up in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (prime bigfoot country, btw). I know how elusive wildlife can be but I also know that the most elusive of wildlife has still be captured by video or photo (clear video or photo) in scientific studies. I have seen with my own eyes all of the large predators in the area, including mountain lions, bears and have found tons of bones and skulls when exploring the caves that exist in the area so "you don't know wildlife" isn't going to fly.
Let me leave you with a few, final points for you to consider...the first is that none of the previously undiscovered animals has ever been found using the "scientific" methods of cryptozoology. They were all found through known, established methods. Secondly, there is not a cryptid that is more studied than bigfoot and, in fact, the entire "scientific" study was built on the bigfoot ledgend. There are thousands upon thousands of people combing the forest for bigfoot yet every single one of them comes up empty somehow. And it is simply hilarious (and an actual identifying attribute of pseudoscience) that as bigfoot hunting becomes more popular, he just happens to crop up in more areas.
reply
share
shazza-7
12 years ago
I think the vast majority of "prints" are misidentification.
Sorry, but YOU are the one who has it backwards. YOU said the above after I asked you how they were "explainable." I countered by saying what I said and then YOU came back making it sound like I said you said something you did not. You are the one getting all mixed up in your own story here darling, not me.
Yeah, done trying to talk to you since you can't keep your story straight. Buh bye now!
Minds are like books, they only function when open.
reply
share
mollys-lips
12 years ago
Oh shazza...predictable much? Looks like any time someone disagrees with you, offers things you can't really counter, you claim they aren't making sense or their mind just isn't as open as yours you run away, acting like you are just way beyond them and won't even be bothered. First of all, you aren't...second, it's beyond transparent and last, that isn't really the hallmark of an open mind.
You should have gone back and done some surreptitious editing and hoped that nobody would notice. Let's recap, shall we? I said that the vast majority of the "evidence" was explainable. Next, you asked how the prints were explainable. I then said, that most prints that are not hoaxes were misidentifications. Now here comes the bear...you said that a bear was the most likely animal print to be misidentified to which I responded that I never said that I was talking about bear prints and went on to explain myself, to clarify what I meant by "misidentified" because clearly you thought I was referring to an animal print being misidentified. Not sure why that didn't end there but next you said (verbatim) "And I never said you said it was a mis-identified bear print.I said that's about the only print that "could" be mis-identified as big foot as nothing else in the wild's of America has a human like foot print." It was clear at that point that you were either intentionally misunderstanding what I was saying or simply just didn't understand because at that point the bear was a moot point as I had said that I was not, nor never had been, speaking about a bear.
But it's no surprise to me that you clung onto that point because there was absolutely nothing you could say in response to the actual points I was making, specifically:
1) Native American and First Nation creation legends are no more real than a talking snake and forbidden fruit. It should not be taken as real simply because it's source is viewed as somehow all knowing.
2) The US is not alone in having dishonest people who, for whatever reason, perpetuate hoaxes. This is 100% true...we know, for a fact, that people from all over the globe have been involved in all sorts of hoaxes, bigfoot or otherwise.
3) Bigfoot is the most hunted animal on earth and the fact that there is not a single solitary skeleton, or even partial skeleton, to be found. We have many examples of this in other species, even endangered or extinct animals. On top of that, there is no evidence of a great ape species in the fossil record for North America. On top of that, we don't have any good, clear reliable photo evidence (this does not require a human to be there...trail cams are used to capture pictures of wildlife all the time), we don't have any verifiable scat or hair or anything else.
4) As bigfoot hunting becomes more popular (and more profitable) bigfoot somehow pops up in more and more places. For decades he was (on this continent)said to live in Nor Cal and the Pac NW. All of a sudden bigfoot lives EVERYWHERE...swamps, plains, New Jersey...it makes zero sense. There is even, according to the "experts", at least one other sub-species of bigfoot. Basically, bigfoot is able to live everywhere, in any environment, all across the States yet nobody can find any tangible evidence.
reply
share