Archaeologica.org

The guy never claims to see Bigfoot. He merely claims that someone/something threw a rock or a stick.

That's hardly overwhelming evidence.


And, the "yeti" ...I agree the quality is lousy.

Minimalist wrote:The guy never claims to see Bigfoot. He merely claims that someone/something threw a rock or a stick.

That's hardly overwhelming evidence.


And, the "yeti" ...I agree the quality is lousy.

There IS no overwhelming evidence. Just little stuff. No One thing I tell you or show you will convince you or myself. It's just so much little stuff. There were no humans for 200 miles to throw the rocks and sticks, so what threw them? There are just so many little things like that which raise questions. I just want to try to answer the questions. If I can prove they exist or that they do not exist then at least it will put a stop to all the speculation. Can you prove that they do not exist? Neither can I. Proving they do would be easier I think.
For the record: yeti, bigfoot, sasquatch, skunk ape, swamp ape, stink ape, Almasti, Yeren, Yowie,abominable snowman, Fouke monster, Boggy creek monster, Honey island swamp monster and any other names for a hairy bipedal creature which is unknown with the possible exception of the orang pendek, are all the same creature. Maybe subspecies of each other, but all related. Orang pendek is, in my opinion, a subspecies of orangutan.

I can almost understand Arch's frustration.

There were no humans for 200 miles to throw the rocks and sticks, so what threw them?

Skeptic that I am, I imagine it was one of the other guys on the crew screwing around.... or, even more likely, the whole thing is a hoax to hype the show. Monsterquest, like everything else on tv, gets money by ratings. I'm afraid that skepticism is not something I can turn on and off like a light switch.

I certainly do not want you to turn off your scpeticism. Where would be the fun in that?
Does it strike you as ironic at all that you are the one who is obstinate and unwilling to change your position on this one and I'm the one with the new, unaccepted ideas? It's like you're "The Club" and I'm the one wanting to change the status quo? You require extraordinary proof?

All I really want is a fair hearing. I'm not crazy. I'm not stupid. I hate to be treated as if I am. Even though I did kinda ask for it.

I don't know about "extraordinary proof." I'd like some proof. The guy talking about the rocks used Arch's old creationism/evolution dichotomy. There are only two possibilities...so...if I poke holes in "evolution" that means "creationism" is TRUE. Horseshit. Just like this fellow's "no one else was there so it must have been BIGFOOT" routine. It "might" have been bigfoot...assuming there is one. But my impression is that "hoax" is far more likely.

I was watching something called Ghost Hunters International. The theory is that these guys go out and try to scientifically evaluate haunted places all around the world. Usually, at the end they report that there is no evidence but they did "feel" a presence or hear some noise that they couldn't explain. During the bulk of the show they sit there and try to over react to everything in an effort to build drama. The whole thing is about as phony as a three-dollar bill. I especially love it when they go to Poland or Italy where some ghost has been around since the 11th century and then they address it in English and, voila....on the tape they keep hearing "answers" also in English!

People love to scare themselves silly. Its the basis of the whole Friday the 13th series.

You're really funny Frank!
In one post you say:

Frank Harrist wrote: stop bringinhg up all this other bullshit. I'm talking about bigfoot not any of this other crap. If you want to look for some fucking demon worm be my guest.

And without missing a beat you say in your very next post:

Frank Harrist wrote: Also, I know this is blurry, but WTF is it if not a Yeti?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/799450/footage_of_a_yeti/

ROTFACGU!

BTW: can't say whether that is or isn't a 'Yeti', but it's certainly the same shitty cameraman that filmed 'Bigfoot'!
The guy gets around!

Try and keep up!
" For the record: yeti, bigfoot, sasquatch, skunk ape, swamp ape, stink ape, Almasti, Yeren, Yowie,abominable snowman, Fouke monster, Boggy creek monster, Honey island swamp monster and any other names for a hairy bipedal creature which is unknown with the possible exception of the orang pendek, are all the same creature. Maybe subspecies of each other, but all related. Orang pendek is, in my opinion, a subspecies of orangutan."

Maybe you could actually read my posts or get someone to read them for you. If you don't have anything intelligent to add just STFU!

I'd never presume to achieve the lofty levels of a debate about Bigfoot/Sasquatch and friends, Frank.
That's better left to the experts of course!

Frank Harrist wrote:Try and keep up!
" For the record: yeti, bigfoot, sasquatch, skunk ape, swamp ape, stink ape, Almasti, Yeren, Yowie,abominable snowman, Fouke monster, Boggy creek monster, Honey island swamp monster and any other names for a hairy bipedal creature which is unknown with the possible exception of the orang pendek, are all the same creature. Maybe subspecies of each other, but all related.

What are the factual arguments for them being related?

Orang pendek is, in my opinion, a subspecies of orangutan."

Orang Utan and Orang Pendek are Malaysian/Bahassa Indonesia (Indonesian) words. Orang Utan literally means "Man Forest" (man of the forest). Orang Pendek literally means "Man Loincloth" (man wearing a loincloth). It does not mean "Short Person", as Wikipedia claims! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek)

So if "Orang Pendek" means "man wearing a loincloth" that seems to indicate a human type that lives in the forest. Not an 'animal'.
Note that Indonesians are a very small people anyway! On average around 1 meter 50cm (5 foot). A full head smaller than western Caucasians.

What are the factual arguments for them being related?

Wouldn't one first have to establish that they exist and only THEN look for evidence that they are related? Seems to me that you can't put the cart before the horse here.

I don't see any harm in going out and looking. This is not a situation where The Club tries to prevent grants for pre-Clovis excavations. Still, those doing the looking must guard against being so enthralled with their subject that they merely add to the tons of folklore "evidence" accumulated so far.

On a marginally-related note, I was having a death penalty discussion on another board and found a statistic that in 74% of cases that were reversed on the basis of DNA it was "eye-witness" testimony which provided the basis for the original conviction. Humans, it appears, are not terribly reliable observers!

Find a body, Frank.

Yeah, I didn't mean that scientifically. I just meant that when I'm talking about bigfoot, I'm talking about any or all of those critters.
Yes, eyewitness testimony is often faulty, to say the least. People also sometimes have an agenda which alters their perceptions. "I hate him so he did it". Bigfoot hunters also sometimes see, hear, smell, or feel what they expect to. I try very hard to remain unbiased and try everything I can to explain something before I decide it must be bigfoot. I've heard some weird things in the woods, but I don't know that it was bigfoot. One has to sort through the information that's out there and decide if it's hysteria, mis-identification, or just plain bullshit. A lot of it's bullshit.
Orang pendek is the name they gave that particular critter. Due to the location and descriptions I've heard I just believe it's another type of orangutan. It probably does exist, but to me it has nothing to do with bigfoot. People lump 'em all together. It just stands out, to me, as different. I'm not too interested in it.

I'm out of action for a while now anyway. That's why I'm here arguing with yall. There are a few intelligent people out there looking for it. Dr. Jeff Meldrum seems fairly intelligent. He seems almost surprised that he believes in it. I also think that the fact that Jane Goodall thinks they probably exist lends a little credibility to the field, but they, and I, could be wrong.

Oh yeah, about finding a body... I have lived in the woods all my life and you'd think there'd be dead animal bodies laying all over, but unless it was fairly fresh I have seen little evidence of animal mortality. They just deteriorate so quickly. Within a week most eveidence is gone and only a few scattered bones remain. These are quickly covered by leaves and they too are completely gone relatively quickly. I have found a chewed deer antler once. One isn't likely to stumble upon a dead bigfoot in any place where people are likely to go. They live deep in places where humans don't go. They die there too. It's possible to find one but the timing would have to be right. I don't expect to find a dead one on the highway, though there are reports of people hitting them with their car. They're hard to kill. (supposedly)

I'm just saying that a body would be as difficult to find as a living specimen would be.

This is very close to where I live. Probably Bullshit, but it is an interesting and entertaining story.
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8547

He gets around, that Bigfoot, doesn't he?
Or she, as the case may be.
They'd have to be permanently trekking all around the continental USA, and Canada, in breeding populations, tribes, like gypsies, to warrant all those thousands of sightings in all those thousands of locations. Yet there's nothing more 'concrete' than some blurry footage and some 'footprints'. And although they must be trekking in larger groups all sightings are always of one individual. Never a group.
It doesn't jive, Frank.
If they'd had gotten as far as the Sabine River I would expect them to go for the nearest big source of easy, protein-rich, nutricious food: seafood. The Gulf. Clams, mussels, shellfish, crabs. Easily gathered without physical danger. And the young-uns can partake in the food gathering. At the seashore. The beach. On the waterline. Yet I'm not aware of any sightings ever of Bigfoot – let alone Bigfoot families – on a beach, where the easy food is. Are you?
It doesn't jive, Frank.

I agree with R/S but that does not mean that you should not look if you wish, Frank. Everyone needs a hobby. Who knows...you may discover a new species of moose or something by accident.

Just avoid the temptation to say that every sound you hear is Bigfoot.....it could be another member of your party farting.