Eugenie C. Scott Tackles Bigfoot

[Hitch]

...did I say UFO?

I said "life in any form" i.e. from microscopic life on up.

So here's your logic:

In the vast universe in all of space there is no chance of life, in any form, even in a microscopic form, that could possibly exist.

Yet, a creature, that is about the size of a human or ape, walking bipedal, can thrive by reproducing asexually, (I am making this assumption because I have never, ever heard a "big foot report" where the witness spotted more than one at a sighting. I have never heard "a family of big..feets..was spotted having a picnic, eating a carcass, picking fruit, having sex, etc, etc, etc., but honestly, I don't follow these sightings closely, so I may be wrong.), can elude all kinds of evidence such as the fact that there has never ever ever been a big foot corpse, an big foot attack, big piles of big foot poop, abandoned baby big foot, an injured big foot, pieces of big foot torn off limbs, a big foot skeleton, big foot vomit, big foot left over food, a big foot mating call, etc, etc, while living so close to human beings on the same planet could exist?

...........is that really your logic?????

Oh, you missed the tickle fights, threesomes and orgies? Apparently there are reports of all of those, Bigfeetus are randy buggers.

 

[JFrankA]

Oh, you missed the tickle fights, threesomes and orgies? Apparently there are reports of all of those, Bigfeetus are randy buggers.

Oh oh oh oh ... what about Big Foot graves? Huh?

I want to see a Big Foot funeral, complete with a Big Foot howling "bury me with him!!!!"

....I'm sorry. I love dark humor. Again, I just couldn't resist.....

 

[Wowbagger]

Arguing from Authority isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

She comes across as self-confident about things she doesnt understand or know.

Folks who say these sorts of things typically can't address her arguments directly.

Let's focus on the evidence and arguments, themselves, please, and not on the person.

 

[makaya325]

Frank, your under an assumption it has evaded us. It lives in the pnw, which is a remote region, and it does leave traces behind which you refuse to even consider.

 

[tyr_13]

Funny, it looks as if Eugenie C. Scott just spent some time considering them! No fair complaining when it turns out to be so much mundane junk that was only mistaken for traces.

 

[makaya325]

Ty, tell me any time eugenie has spent outside of her darn office?

When is it mundane junk? The fact its just an ape?

 

[JFrankA]

Frank, your under an assumption it has evaded us. It lives in the pnw, which is a remote region, and it does leave traces behind which you refuse to even consider.

Okay...

Then educate me:

1) what does "pnw" mean?

2) a remote region ... where exactly?

3) traces such as....?

4) how does it reproduce?

5) what does it eat?

6) how does it interact with the environment?

7) what does it do with a corpse when a fellow big foot dies?

8) how does it interact with it's own family (does it have a litter or one baby at a time? does the father stick around or do they run away? etc, etc)

9) how do the hunt? what do they hunt?

...you know, I could go on all day, but I'll spare most of the questions. The biggest question is this:

10) how does something, about the size of a human or an ape, elude other life forms so succesfully....?


...everyone else, I'm not a zoologist or biologist by any means, but it seems to me that these are basic questions that we should know if there was a bipedal mammal the size of an ape running around, no matter how remote their dwelling is. For something that size to live by eluding us so well that species would have to live on another planet...right?

...or am I just being ironic????

 

[tyr_13]

You don't have to leave your office to consider the evidence! It is brought to you, the pictures, analysis and reports are sent through the mail or a series of tubes.

She's kind of busy too. I would call it a pretty big point of charity that she took the time to address bigfoot at all. You want more people taking it seriously? Bring in serious evidence. You say you have? Where? That's what these forums do you know, look for the stuff. How can you say we're not listening when we actually answer you? How can you say people just dismiss it when people of her caliber take the time to answer? Dang, it takes some kind of persecution complex to get what you were asking for and still be pissy.

EDIT: pnw= Pacific North West

 

[Aerik]

Sure are a lot of bigfoot trolls recently.

Seriously. To argue that the same species of bigfoot exists all over the world is absurd. No mammal has been known to exist in such a wide range of geography, without the aid of technology, without adapting to climates in visually unambiguous ways. Only alligators/crocodiles and sharks have managed that, and a few others. Bigfoot believers, please tell us, do you think there may be different colored and shaped bigfoot species out there? White ones in the snow, black/brown ones in forests?

If we shave them, will some of them have red butts like baboons?

Will they have blunt-ended penises or very conical penises, compared to other primates?

Has Wolf-Henrich been able to distinguish different body hair types like we have, hair/body/pubic ?? Did he just say "I dunno" and assume bigfoot? You know what a fallacy of argument-from-ignorance is, right?

Where would a taxonomist place him on the primate evolutionary tree?

Can you make any real predictions based on science?

Also, most people who think they saw bigfoot weren't looking for him either. So the crap about 'skeptics' not seeing bigfoot is a load of buttwaste. What do you people think, skeptics never go hiking, camping, canoeing, kayaking, white water rafting, repelling from cliffs, waterfall diving, base jumping, hang-gliding, occasionally live in remote areas, or do field research as scientists, or anything at all deep in this magical universal stereotype of a place called "the forest" which is still disappearing and getting smaller every day in Europe and the Americas? Is that really what you're suggesting?

If anything, it means you never get out of the house and do these things, or else you would've met plenty of bigfoot skeptics. Or maybe you were too busy talking at people about bigfoot to even bother asking what they really believe.

 

[makaya325]

why?

Okay...

Then educate me:

1) what does "pnw" mean?

pacific northwest

2) a remote region ... where exactly?

see above

3) traces such as....?

hair, tracks, animal markings, behaviors

4) how does it reproduce?

sexually

5) what does it eat?

omnivore: insects, berries, deer, squirrels, lichens, moss, birds?

6) how does it interact with the environment?

observed behaviors.

7) what does it do with a corpse when a fellow big foot dies?

it rots.

8) how does it interact with it's own family (does it have a litter or one baby at a time? does the father stick around or do they run away? etc, etc)

Look at the nasi report

9) how do the hunt? what do they hunt?

...you know, I could go on all day, but I'll spare most of the questions. The biggest question is this:

10) how does something, about the size of a human or an ape, elude other life forms so succesfully....?

 

[makaya325]

Aerik, sure skeptics go out, but they do encounter things they cant dismiss, but dismiss

 

[tyr_13]

Now you are telling us what skeptics encounter? Were you with them?

 

[makaya325]

No, ty, im saying that people who were once skeptics had an encounter and changed

 

[tyr_13]

And that makes them right because?

 

[makaya325]

TY, it doesnt make them right or wrong, it means they had an encounter with something that doesnt fit the description of any animal we know of

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Frank, your under an assumption it has evaded us. It lives in the pnw, which is a remote region, and it does leave traces behind which you refuse to even consider.

Sure, big Fred Flintstone footprints.

 

[Cleon]

JF, sorry, life on other planets is a complete dead end.

You know this because...?

for bigfoot, we had animals on earth that resembled it= Gigantopithecus,

The only way Gigantopithecus "resembled" Bigfoot was that it was big.

meganthropus robustus,

There is no evidence that Meganthropus looked anything like Bigfoot.

neanderthal.

What?! Neandertals looked less like Bigfoot than you do.

And I'm not making a crack. I'm being serious. Neandertals were shorter than modern humans, and were not covered with hair. If you ran into a living Neandertal on the street, the only thing you might notice is that the person was a little tough-looking.

 

[Cleon]

Ty, tell me any time eugenie has spent outside of her darn office?

Well, if you read the OP, you have a first-hand account of someone seeing her outside of her office. Duh.

Perhaps you'd be better suited discussing what she actually says, rather than go hunting for reasons to not pay attention.

 

[Aerik]

makaya325, seriously, what an insult. Skeptics like us don't assume "I don't know what it was, therefore random positive hypoethesis X must be true!"


I don't know = I don't know.


It's only you that thinks if we see something we don't recognize, we should automatically start humping the legs of people like wolf-heinrich.

And you still haven't really answered any questions.

1/2) The pacific northwest is not "remote." A place is not made 'remote' just because it's big. It becomes remote when it's hard to get to for humans, and rarely visited. If you draw any big enough area on a map of Canada you'll manage to include some 'remote' area, but that doesn't mean you can just point your finger at a region named on map and say it's all 'remote'. Your answer is so vague as to be meaningless.

3) All known big foot tracks have been shown to be either fake or too ambiguous to even be seen as tracks of anything. and "behaviors" is not a trace. What do you even mean by that? And what kind of "animal markings?" Bears leave 'claw marks' and stuff like that. Woodpeckers leave 'holes'. I've never heard of a specific species of anything leaving around this ambiguous "animal markings" thing. Your answer is a non-answer.

4) Again, not actually answering the question. Are they monogomous? Do they have 1 baby at a time? Are twins common? Is parenting shared? Are only males solitary like with lions and some primates? Do they mate face-to-face or not? Is it ever just for pleasure or like some primates, for politics?

5) That's what any primate would eat. But also very ambiguous. what fruit, what nuts, what berries, what mosses, what birds? Deer? How are they killing them? What tools do they use? Have they been found?

6) another vague non-answer.

7) Your problem here is, no carnivores or scavenging creature has been known to contain or excrete the remains of anything that could be even possibly bigfoot. What you're in fact saying is bigfoot is the only animal that scavengers don't eat and rots so fast that it does not even leave bones behind for anybody to find ever. And that bigfoot never falls off of cliffs or high ledges, or any such place where it could be found by humans, even loggers.

8) Don't cite crap reports.

9) You did say deer, but true, you did not say how and what evidence you have for it. Now you're just refusing to answer because you have none.

 

[learner]

JF, sorry, life on other planets is a complete dead end.

for bigfoot, we had animals on earth that resembled it= Gigantopithecus, meganthropus robustus, neanderthal.

aliens=none, unless you count the ufo nonsense

In what way do bigfoots resemble Neanderthals?
I know no facts about bigfoots ( theres a good reason for that) so please indulge me with a detailed comparison.
Thanks.