The Ape Canyon "attack"

Craig4 said:
He never had me. Run off and fetch an actual Bigfoot. Nothing else will do. We need not be detained by your silly little beliefs.
Click to expand...

The days of myself trying to convince anyone Bigfoot exists are long over. I don't care what you believe or disbelieve. I'm content with my position on Bigfoot and I won't think less of you simply because you lack that experience and knowledge. As a skeptic, I'm perfectly content knowing that I know something you don't. Feel free to add more satire to the thread if you choose, I enjoy it.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The days of myself trying to convince anyone Bigfoot exists are long over. I don't care what you believe or disbelieve. I'm content with my position on Bigfoot and I won't think less of you simply because you lack that experience and knowledge. As a skeptic, I'm perfectly content knowing that I know something you don't. Feel free to add more satire to the thread if you choose, I enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Oh that's adorable. You run along and play with your dragon in your garage now.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The days of myself trying to convince anyone Bigfoot exists are long over.
Click to expand...
Works out well because you can't.

I don't care what you believe or disbelieve.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you.

I'm content with my position on Bigfoot and I won't think less of you simply because you lack that experience and knowledge.
Click to expand...
Dunning-Kruger would like a word.

As a skeptic I'm perfectly content knowing that I know something you don't.
Click to expand...
See the above.

Feel free to add more satire to the thread if you choose, I enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Nope, the thread topic is satire enough. Also too, calling yourself a skeptic.
 
Craig4 said:
Oh that's adorable. You run along and play with your dragon in your garage now.
Click to expand...

I'd expect better than that. You're slipping.

Resume said:
Works out well because you can't.


I don't believe you.


Dunning-Kruger would like a word.


See the above.


Nope, the thread topic is satire enough. Also too, calling yourself a skeptic.
Click to expand...

Now this is more like it. Childishly lacking, but better.
 
Boys, boys. There's no need for this silliness. Pipe down before you both get sent to your rooms.

Seriously, though; an actual full specimen of the animal - living or dead - is not "too much" of an ask. It's fairly baseline for zoology. I'm with Craig4 on that. You can believe what you want, but until we have a body you may as well be believing in the tooth fairy - an entity, I might add, whose existence I regularly collected "evidence" of for years when I was a child.
 
Checkmite said:
Boys, boys. There's no need for this silliness. Pipe down before you both get sent to your rooms.

Seriously, though; an actual full specimen of the animal - living or dead - is not "too much" of an ask. It's fairly baseline for zoology. I'm with Craig4 on that. You can believe what you want, but until we have a body you may as well be believing in the tooth fairy - an entity, I might add, whose existence I regularly collected "evidence" of for years when I was a child.
Click to expand...
How about a piece of a footie: arm, skull, bones, teeth? Or perhaps anything in the fossil record, or some sort of novel primate DNA? Fact is there is none of recorded anywhere in the natural history of North America; stories, anecdotes and other claims abound, but these are no substitute for objective, testable evidence.
 
A fossils are not sufficient for a species that is supposed to exist today.

The rest of those things CAN help, to a point, but they are not ideal as in some cases they could be the result of a disease or deformity in a known species, and DNA results without a tangible, visibly-novel thing to relate them to are often too ambiguous, open to interpretation, and subject to problems like contamination.
 
Checkmite said:
A fossils are not sufficient for a species that is supposed to exist today.

The rest of those things CAN help, to a point, but they are not ideal as in some cases they could be the result of a disease or deformity in a known species, and DNA results without a tangible, visibly-novel thing to relate them to are often too ambiguous, open to interpretation, and subject to problems like contamination.
Click to expand...

All those things might be an indication that there could be something to investigate, though clearly not enough to establish a novel taxon. But none of those things have ever been documented.

There is no reason to believe that there is a continentally distributed, breeding population of bipedal upright primates. This is the stuff of myth,
 
Checkmite said:
A fossils are not sufficient for a species that is supposed to exist today.

The rest of those things CAN help, to a point, but they are not ideal as in some cases they could be the result of a disease or deformity in a known species, and DNA results without a tangible, visibly-novel thing to relate them to are often too ambiguous, open to interpretation, and subject to problems like contamination.
Click to expand...

This is trivially easy. Just get a body. No big deal. Have you ever been to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum? The only reason it's hard with Bigfoot is that they don't exist.
 
We have unfossilized bone of T Rex that it was possible to extract partial DNA. 65 million years couldn't deny us that.

Footie is supposed to be a widespread living, breeding population. Yet absolutely nothing. Hmmmm....
 
Last edited:
And not just widespread, but truly global on a scale rare for megafauna. We're supposed to accept that Bigfeet live literally everywhere there's land, in all biomes where humans live - including remote Pacific islands - and some regions where humans don't or can't without technological help, like alpine tundras and even above the snowline. At this point it's almost strange that some website or other hasn't tried to claim that an unnamed team of explorers in a bathyscape witnessed one strolling along the floor of a deep ocean trench and the incident was hushed up. According to Bigfoot believers, they must be the single most ubiquitous land animal on the planet. And yet not a single one in-hand.
 
Checkmite said:
Boys, boys. There's no need for this silliness. Pipe down before you both get sent to your rooms.

Seriously, though; an actual full specimen of the animal - living or dead - is not "too much" of an ask. It's fairly baseline for zoology. I'm with Craig4 on that. You can believe what you want, but until we have a body you may as well be believing in the tooth fairy - an entity, I might add, whose existence I regularly collected "evidence" of for years when I was a child.
Click to expand...

I think if people want to use Bigfoot as an excuse to get out hiking in the forests then that's great. Go to it. Pick up trash while you're out there. But why is it too much to ask Bigfoot investigators to establish effective methodologies to collect data, which should lead to a more effective search, which should end with capture of one of the creatures, or at the very least acquire quality images of the thing? Hunters do this all the time. Hunters invest in trail cams, learn to read tracks, and scat to track their targets. And hunters put in the time. The difference between hunters, biologists, and Bigfoot hunters is hunters, and biologists are usually successful.

Give skeptics a reason to take bigfoot hunters seriously.
 
They do have an established method that has proven itself for decades.
Hear something move in the brush out there.
Grab a cheap ass camera and give it to the drunk guy with a shaking hand. Let him get 12 seconds of blurry video of something moving towards them in the distance.
Scream, run like schoolgirls in a horror movie away from it.
Regroup and invent a story on how big it was, how it smelled or something then share it on a scientific site like TikTok.

Let the experts there discuss it based on the video and raw speculation pulled from your ass.

There you go, a verified footie encounter!
 
Last edited:
8enotto said:
They do have an established method that has proven itself for decades.
Hear something move in the brush out there.
Grab a cheap ass camera and give it to the drunk guy with a shaking hand. Let him get 12 seconds of blurry video of something moving towards them in the distance.
Scream, run like schoolgirls in a horror movie away from it.
Regroup and invent a story on how big it was, how it smelled or something then share it on a scientific site like TikTok.

Let the experts there discuss it based on the video and raw speculation pulled from your ass.

There you go, a verified footie encounter!
Click to expand...

Gee. I may be a BigFoot believer after all. When I was a kid I went walking in Algonquin Park (qv) with a bunch of family and friends. We heard a rustle in the trees and someone shouted, "BEAR!". We ran like hell back to our cars.

I suppose it could have been a BigFoot. :o
 
It's even better when there is no video. Just testimony of a bunch of people about something that happened decades ago. You can go back and revisit the site of the encounter, or somewhere close enough and get interviewed by footie experts .

That's how it worked best for the In Search Of tv program decades ago.
 
The question was: "Was there any newspaper or magazine coverage" of the Ape Canyon story at the time. Yes, there was reporting in newspapers. I've read one contemporary article where a First Nations Chief linked the miners' account to the Indian tribe of Sasquatch.

What I've always wondered about: When the miners went back to the cabin, two journalists accompanied them. One journalist was the stepson of Clarence Darrow. The other worked for a Washington state newspaper. I have never found any opinion piece or straight reporting by either man on what they found at the site, and whether they believed anything in the miners' story.

I have seen one photo from a contemporary newspaper of a track that was alleged to have been made by an ape at the cabin, but it was very blocky and indistinct.

One contemporary report noted that a Forest Ranger, who was the first approached by the agitated miners, thought they were babbling about a wolverine attack since they kept talking about "mountain devils," a common term for wolverines.
 
BOGART said:
I have seen one photo from a contemporary newspaper of a track that was alleged to have been made by an ape at the cabin, but it was very blocky and indistinct.
Click to expand...
Of course it was. The entire phenomenon exists in the blocky and indistinct. Do you know why? When photos are clear you can see what they are. And clear photos never show bigfoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom