OT - Is Bigfoot Real or a Hoax?

On Oct 6, 9:07*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:26 pm, "Carl Sundquist" wrote:

" wrote in message

....
On Oct 4, 8:09 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Name one animal species that lives in vastly different climates besides
humans.

Bison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison

The bison once inhabited the Great Plains of the United States and Canada in
massive herds, ranging from the Great Slave Lake in Canada's far north to
Mexico in the south, and from eastern Oregon almost to the Atlantic Ocean,

Dumbass -

Mountain lion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar

The cougar (Puma concolor), also puma, mountain lion, or panther,
depending on region, is a mammal of the Felidae family, native to the
Americas. This large, solitary cat has the greatest range of any wild
terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere,[3] extending from Yukon
in Canada to the southern Andes of South America. An adaptable,
generalist species, the cougar is found in every major New World
habitat type.

snipend

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

We have mountain lions in zoos - how come no Bigdick is in any zoo?




Dumbass -


Why aren't coelecanths in aquariums?

Once again, you've seriously got the wrong idea if you think that
humans know all there is to know about nature.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Oct 6, 5:14*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Kyle Legate wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you don't have proof that something exists it means by default it
likely does not exist.

We don't have proof of the Higgs boson, but millions of dollars were
spent building the LHC to find it. Why would we do that if it likely
doesn't exist?

There was plenty of proof it existed, just not direct evidence. *For
example, mathematical formulae did not add up unless you factored in
this missing constant.

They even have a name for it after the guy who theorized it.

BTW, the collider costs tens of billions of dollars. *Do you know how
many scientists were involved in building that? *Something like over
4,000 - guys from MIT, Harvard - the best of the best....



There's also no direct evidence of dark matter, dark energy, etc.
etc.

And until 30 years ago, anyone who proposed such things would've been
laughed at by people like you.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kyle Legate wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you don't have proof that something exists it means by default it
likely does not exist.

We don't have proof of the Higgs boson, but millions of dollars were
spent building the LHC to find it. Why would we do that if it likely
doesn't exist?

There was plenty of proof it existed, just not direct evidence. For
example, mathematical formulae did not add up unless you factored in
this missing constant.

They even have a name for it after the guy who theorized it.

BTW, the collider costs tens of billions of dollars. Do you know how
many scientists were involved in building that? Something like over
4,000 - guys from MIT, Harvard - the best of the best....




There's also no direct evidence of dark matter, dark energy, etc.
etc.

And until 30 years ago, anyone who proposed such things would've been
laughed at by people like you.



All based on mathematics that didn't add up without dark matter, etc.
And then you also have something called consensus within the field of
astrophysics.

Bigfoot is still laughed at in 2008 by the scientific community.

Also, the people who proposed dark matter are highly respected Ph.d.'s.
The people who propose Bigdick are uneducated jackasses who don't even
understand science, ecology, or evolution.

Also, I would never say something like dark matter doesn't exist in
physics because the person who espouses its existence would be able to
articulate in grave detail why it exists. He just wouldn't declare it
exists for no reason like Bigdick believers do.

When I ask basic questions about why Bigdick hasn't been photographed, I
get no substantive response other than knee-jerk layperson reactions
("he lives in a cave"). When I ask what its diet is, I get no answer.
It's obvious people are just making up **** as they go along.

What is the basis for believing in Bigdick? Why not believe in space
aliens that live at the bottom of the ocean? Why not believe that
horses are space aliens?

What is the evidence for Bigdick's existence?


Magilla

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 6, 9:07 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 5, 9:26 pm, "Carl Sundquist" wrote:

" wrote in message

...
On Oct 4, 8:09 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Name one animal species that lives in vastly different climates besides
humans.

Bison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison

The bison once inhabited the Great Plains of the United States and Canada in
massive herds, ranging from the Great Slave Lake in Canada's far north to
Mexico in the south, and from eastern Oregon almost to the Atlantic Ocean,

Dumbass -

Mountain lion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar

The cougar (Puma concolor), also puma, mountain lion, or panther,
depending on region, is a mammal of the Felidae family, native to the
Americas. This large, solitary cat has the greatest range of any wild
terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere,[3] extending from Yukon
in Canada to the southern Andes of South America. An adaptable,
generalist species, the cougar is found in every major New World
habitat type.

snipend

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

We have mountain lions in zoos - how come no Bigdick is in any zoo?





Dumbass -


Why aren't coelecanths in aquariums?

Once again, you've seriously got the wrong idea if you think that
humans know all there is to know about nature.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


Marine life is different, far more unexplored and much more unknowns.
BTW, there is not a single great white shark or giant squid or blue
whale or sperm whale, etc. in captivity either.

Coelecanths were once alive and thought to have gone extinct. They
weren't. Not that big of a deal since its original existence was never
in doubt.

Bigdick was never even alleged by any scientist to have been alive (i.e.
its existence proven through fossil record like a coelecanth was). it
just came out of nowhere and people claims it lives near ****ing Seattle
or something.


Magilla

On Oct 6, 7:20*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kyle Legate wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you don't have proof that something exists it means by default it
likely does not exist.

We don't have proof of the Higgs boson, but millions of dollars were
spent building the LHC to find it. Why would we do that if it likely
doesn't exist?

There was plenty of proof it existed, just not direct evidence. *For
example, mathematical formulae did not add up unless you factored in
this missing constant.

They even have a name for it after the guy who theorized it.

BTW, the collider costs tens of billions of dollars. *Do you know how
many scientists were involved in building that? *Something like over
4,000 - guys from MIT, Harvard - the best of the best....

There's also no direct evidence of dark matter, dark energy, etc.
etc.

And until 30 years ago, anyone who proposed such things would've been
laughed at by people like you.

All based on mathematics that didn't add up without dark matter, etc.
And then you also have something called consensus within the field of
astrophysics.

Bigfoot is still laughed at in 2008 by the scientific community.

Also, the people who proposed dark matter are highly respected Ph.d.'s.
* The people who propose Bigdick are uneducated jackasses who don't even
understand science, ecology, or evolution.

Also, I would never say something like dark matter doesn't exist in
physics because the person who espouses its existence would be able to
articulate in grave detail why it exists. *He just wouldn't declare it
exists for no reason like Bigdick believers do.

When I ask basic questions about why Bigdick hasn't been photographed, I
get no substantive response other than knee-jerk layperson reactions
("he lives in a cave"). *When I ask what its diet is, I get no answer.
It's obvious people are just making up **** as they go along.

What is the basis for believing in Bigdick? *Why not believe in space
aliens that live at the bottom of the ocean? *Why not believe that
horses are space aliens?

What is the evidence for Bigdick's existence?




Dumbass -


A scientist who follows the scientific method doesn't say, "Bigfoot
doesn't exist" because he/she doesn't have that information. What he/
she can say is, "it's highly unlikely that Bigfoot exists", but they
leave open the possibility, because the scientific method doesn't
disprove it.

Similarly, the scientific method doesn't "prove" Global Warming. What
the studies do say is that there's a 90% chance, based upon the
computer climate models, that the rise in global temperatures in the
last century are due to human activity.

Belief, the likes of which you espouse, aren't the types of statements
made by real scientists. Scientists look at the information that is
available, draw logical conclusions and realize that the conclusions
are fallible.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:20 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kyle Legate wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you don't have proof that something exists it means by default it
likely does not exist.

We don't have proof of the Higgs boson, but millions of dollars were
spent building the LHC to find it. Why would we do that if it likely
doesn't exist?

There was plenty of proof it existed, just not direct evidence. For
example, mathematical formulae did not add up unless you factored in
this missing constant.

They even have a name for it after the guy who theorized it.

BTW, the collider costs tens of billions of dollars. Do you know how
many scientists were involved in building that? Something like over
4,000 - guys from MIT, Harvard - the best of the best....

There's also no direct evidence of dark matter, dark energy, etc.
etc.

And until 30 years ago, anyone who proposed such things would've been
laughed at by people like you.

All based on mathematics that didn't add up without dark matter, etc.
And then you also have something called consensus within the field of
astrophysics.

Bigfoot is still laughed at in 2008 by the scientific community.

Also, the people who proposed dark matter are highly respected Ph.d.'s.
The people who propose Bigdick are uneducated jackasses who don't even
understand science, ecology, or evolution.

Also, I would never say something like dark matter doesn't exist in
physics because the person who espouses its existence would be able to
articulate in grave detail why it exists. He just wouldn't declare it
exists for no reason like Bigdick believers do.

When I ask basic questions about why Bigdick hasn't been photographed, I
get no substantive response other than knee-jerk layperson reactions
("he lives in a cave"). When I ask what its diet is, I get no answer.
It's obvious people are just making up **** as they go along.

What is the basis for believing in Bigdick? Why not believe in space
aliens that live at the bottom of the ocean? Why not believe that
horses are space aliens?

What is the evidence for Bigdick's existence?





Dumbass -


A scientist who follows the scientific method doesn't say, "Bigfoot
doesn't exist" because he/she doesn't have that information. What he/
she can say is, "it's highly unlikely that Bigfoot exists", but they
leave open the possibility, because the scientific method doesn't
disprove it.



But why stop there - why not say it's possible that space aliens live at
the bottom of Lake Tahoe?

In fact, according to you, the list of hypothetical aliens, monsters,
and never-before-discovered species inhabiting the planet would be
infinite? What is the point of making such vague, unquantified statements?

So while you might technically be correct in only the strictest
definition of what the scientific method dictates, my answer that
Bigfeet doesn't exist is a more practical answer.

Also, there is more evidence that Bigfeet doesn't exist that can support
my theory than yours. Probability statistics in the way of a lack of
sightings can be used as a statistical comparison to other indigenous
animals and primates to support the hypothesis that Bigdick doesn't
actually exist. So can the lack of fossils of transitional species,
dead carcasses, scat, DNA, etc.

Once you crunch all the numbers, you will see that there's something
scientifically disingenuous about advancing the hypothesis that it's
possible a 500 lbs. primate roams the Pacific Northwest near Seattle.
You would be forced to say, it's "very unlikely" that such a beast
exists rather than it's "possible."

Science is about probabilities, not possibilities.

Otherwise, you can say it's "possible" that Ivan Quaranta will win the
Alpe d'Huez stage next year. Whereas what you should say according to
the evidence is "it's virtually impossible" for Ivan Quaranta to win
that stage. Your statement that it's "possible" for him to win is
scientifically disingenuous and plays semantical games with what really
should be more precise statements.

So if you want me to concede it's possible that Bigfoot exists, I will
only do so in the context that it's just as possible that a 6-ton
elephant lives in shopping malls and only comes out of hiding when the
mall closes at night.

You want to play cute little games with words, I'll play games too. If
you think these word games establish that Bigdick exists, you're kidding
yourself. What you need is exactly what you don't have: proof.


Magilla

On Oct 7, 10:32*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:20 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kyle Legate wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you don't have proof that something exists it means by default it
likely does not exist.

We don't have proof of the Higgs boson, but millions of dollars were
spent building the LHC to find it. Why would we do that if it likely
doesn't exist?

There was plenty of proof it existed, just not direct evidence. *For
example, mathematical formulae did not add up unless you factored in
this missing constant.

They even have a name for it after the guy who theorized it.

BTW, the collider costs tens of billions of dollars. *Do you know how
many scientists were involved in building that? *Something like over
4,000 - guys from MIT, Harvard - the best of the best....

There's also no direct evidence of dark matter, dark energy, etc.
etc.

And until 30 years ago, anyone who proposed such things would've been
laughed at by people like you.

All based on mathematics that didn't add up without dark matter, etc.
And then you also have something called consensus within the field of
astrophysics.

Bigfoot is still laughed at in 2008 by the scientific community.

Also, the people who proposed dark matter are highly respected Ph.d.'s.
*The people who propose Bigdick are uneducated jackasses who don't even
understand science, ecology, or evolution.

Also, I would never say something like dark matter doesn't exist in
physics because the person who espouses its existence would be able to
articulate in grave detail why it exists. *He just wouldn't declare it
exists for no reason like Bigdick believers do.

When I ask basic questions about why Bigdick hasn't been photographed, I
get no substantive response other than knee-jerk layperson reactions
("he lives in a cave"). *When I ask what its diet is, I get no answer..
It's obvious people are just making up **** as they go along.

What is the basis for believing in Bigdick? *Why not believe in space
aliens that live at the bottom of the ocean? *Why not believe that
horses are space aliens?

What is the evidence for Bigdick's existence?

Dumbass -

A scientist who follows the scientific method doesn't say, "Bigfoot
doesn't exist" because he/she doesn't have that information. What he/
she can say is, "it's highly unlikely that Bigfoot exists", but they
leave open the possibility, because the scientific method doesn't
disprove it.

But why stop there - why not say it's possible that space aliens live at
the bottom of Lake Tahoe?

In fact, according to you, the list of hypothetical aliens, monsters,
and never-before-discovered species inhabiting the planet would be
infinite? *What is the point of making such vague, unquantified statements?

So while you might technically be correct in only the strictest
definition of what the scientific method dictates, my answer that
Bigfeet doesn't exist is a more practical answer.

Also, there is more evidence that Bigfeet doesn't exist that can support
my theory than yours. *Probability statistics in the way of a lack of
sightings can be used as a statistical comparison to other indigenous
animals and primates to support the hypothesis that Bigdick doesn't
actually exist. *So can the lack of fossils of transitional species,
dead carcasses, scat, DNA, etc.

Once you crunch all the numbers, you will see that there's something
scientifically disingenuous about advancing the hypothesis that it's
possible a 500 lbs. primate roams the Pacific Northwest near Seattle.
You would be forced to say, it's "very unlikely" that such a beast
exists rather than it's "possible."

snip




Dumbass -


Both statements would be correct. It's both unlikely and possible.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:32 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 6, 7:20 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:14 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Kyle Legate wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you don't have proof that something exists it means by default it
likely does not exist.

We don't have proof of the Higgs boson, but millions of dollars were
spent building the LHC to find it. Why would we do that if it likely
doesn't exist?

There was plenty of proof it existed, just not direct evidence. For
example, mathematical formulae did not add up unless you factored in
this missing constant.

They even have a name for it after the guy who theorized it.

BTW, the collider costs tens of billions of dollars. Do you know how
many scientists were involved in building that? Something like over
4,000 - guys from MIT, Harvard - the best of the best....

There's also no direct evidence of dark matter, dark energy, etc.
etc.

And until 30 years ago, anyone who proposed such things would've been
laughed at by people like you.

All based on mathematics that didn't add up without dark matter, etc.
And then you also have something called consensus within the field of
astrophysics.

Bigfoot is still laughed at in 2008 by the scientific community.

Also, the people who proposed dark matter are highly respected Ph.d.'s.
The people who propose Bigdick are uneducated jackasses who don't even
understand science, ecology, or evolution.

Also, I would never say something like dark matter doesn't exist in
physics because the person who espouses its existence would be able to
articulate in grave detail why it exists. He just wouldn't declare it
exists for no reason like Bigdick believers do.

When I ask basic questions about why Bigdick hasn't been photographed, I
get no substantive response other than knee-jerk layperson reactions
("he lives in a cave"). When I ask what its diet is, I get no answer.
It's obvious people are just making up **** as they go along.

What is the basis for believing in Bigdick? Why not believe in space
aliens that live at the bottom of the ocean? Why not believe that
horses are space aliens?

What is the evidence for Bigdick's existence?

Dumbass -

A scientist who follows the scientific method doesn't say, "Bigfoot
doesn't exist" because he/she doesn't have that information. What he/
she can say is, "it's highly unlikely that Bigfoot exists", but they
leave open the possibility, because the scientific method doesn't
disprove it.

But why stop there - why not say it's possible that space aliens live at
the bottom of Lake Tahoe?

In fact, according to you, the list of hypothetical aliens, monsters,
and never-before-discovered species inhabiting the planet would be
infinite? What is the point of making such vague, unquantified statements?

So while you might technically be correct in only the strictest
definition of what the scientific method dictates, my answer that
Bigfeet doesn't exist is a more practical answer.

Also, there is more evidence that Bigfeet doesn't exist that can support
my theory than yours. Probability statistics in the way of a lack of
sightings can be used as a statistical comparison to other indigenous
animals and primates to support the hypothesis that Bigdick doesn't
actually exist. So can the lack of fossils of transitional species,
dead carcasses, scat, DNA, etc.

Once you crunch all the numbers, you will see that there's something
scientifically disingenuous about advancing the hypothesis that it's
possible a 500 lbs. primate roams the Pacific Northwest near Seattle.
You would be forced to say, it's "very unlikely" that such a beast
exists rather than it's "possible."


snip




Dumbass -


Both statements would be correct. It's both unlikely and possible.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



It's more than just "unlikely." Try highly unlikely. Using the word
"possible" is not helpful since you can say that about virtually
anything, so why bother even saying it?

You were trying to use the word possible to imply an inflated likelihood
of existence.

Magilla

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:


Why aren't coelecanths in aquariums?

Most of them are too busy posting political messages in RBR to visit an
aquarium.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
Why aren't coelecanths in aquariums?

Fred Fredburger wrote:
Most of them are too busy posting political messages in RBR to visit an
aquarium.

So now coelecanths are part of the liberal conspirancy.