JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags bigfoot

Reply
Old 22nd August 2008, 08:34 PM   #1
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
Reasons why Bigfoot can't exist in America

I'm sure this has already been posted in one form or another, but my Bigfoot-lovin' buddy won't listen to any reasons I've given so I'm looking for more. Please add to this list.

Here are my reasons:

No great apes in the Americas, ever

No bones and no fossil record of giant apes found on this continent

Migration from Africa is impossibl for apes: Apes could never cross thru Siberia barefoot, as they'd freeze their tootsies. Siberia has been cold since primates developed and a block until much later migration, about 12K years ago, more or less

Omnynimoty: (just made that word up, means one of a kind!) A breeding population would require/produce so many adults/offspring they'd be seen more often. Or their nests, caves, breeding grounds. One Bigfoot means he's not getting any action, and the impreative to reproduce would make itself evident in by population, mating calls, etc.

Also, Apes and monkeys are communal critters. Bigfoot ain't.

All other apes are herbivorious. (Chimps will eat meat rarely) It would take a meat, which produces lots more calories and protien, to be consumed almost entirely in the Ice Age or before in the Cold North. Humans had to invent tools and use hides to carry out a migration during time of primate migration. (Humans during the Ice Age. Apes stayed home.)

Wild plants that grow in forests are very low in caloric input. Which probably is why Gorillas spend most of their time eating and sleeping and grooming each other and grab-assing, not walking about harrassing campers and breeding with red-neck women who appear in Weekly World News

Would need clothing as well as shoes to protect from cold NW American winters, and tools to kill game. Hibernation isn't the answer for cold winters; Apes don't hibernate nor do they have cold winters to contend with. An animal like a giant Ape has too much body mass. Black Bears, you say! No, black bears don't really hibernate like true hibernators, hibernation is a body function that changes the body in lots of ways and if they don't hide, they're pretty well helpless; Bears semi-hibernate and go outside and feed during winter...not every day, but they're there.

No proof of any kind and many sighters have either admitted hoaxes or been debunked


Add some more, please. This is just skimming the surface of the "Ain't no Bigfoot" swamp..
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2008, 11:56 PM   #2
Uncle Effort
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
No great apes in the Americas, ever
That doesn't eliminate the possibility.

Quote:
No bones and no fossil record of giant apes found on this continent
Lack of evidence is not the same as it can't exist here.

Quote:
Migration from Africa is impossibl for apes: Apes could never cross thru Siberia barefoot, as they'd freeze their tootsies. Siberia has been cold since primates developed and a block until much later migration, about 12K years ago, more or less
How do we know whether or not they're great apes without a body...if they exist?

Quote:
Omnynimoty: (just made that word up, means one of a kind!) A breeding population would require/produce so many adults/offspring they'd be seen more often. Or their nests, caves, breeding grounds. One Bigfoot means he's not getting any action, and the impreative to reproduce would make itself evident in by population, mating calls, etc.
Seen any wolverines lately. Very rare and solitary, but they still breed.

Quote:
Also, Apes and monkeys are communal critters. Bigfoot ain't.
How about Organgutans?

Quote:
All other apes are herbivorious. (Chimps will eat meat rarely) It would take a meat, which produces lots more calories and protien, to be consumed almost entirely in the Ice Age or before in the Cold North. Humans had to invent tools and use hides to carry out a migration during time of primate migration. (Humans during the Ice Age. Apes stayed home.)
Again who says that they're great apes...or that great apes can't be omnivorious?

Quote:
Wild plants that grow in forests are very low in caloric input. Which probably is why Gorillas spend most of their time eating and sleeping and grooming each other and grab-assing, not walking about harrassing campers and breeding with red-neck women who appear in Weekly World News
?

Quote:
Would need clothing as well as shoes to protect from cold NW American winters, and tools to kill game. Hibernation isn't the answer for cold winters; Apes don't hibernate nor do they have cold winters to contend with. An animal like a giant Ape has too much body mass. Black Bears, you say! No, black bears don't really hibernate like true hibernators, hibernation is a body function that changes the body in lots of ways and if they don't hide, they're pretty well helpless; Bears semi-hibernate and go outside and feed during winter...not every day, but they're there.
An 800 lb primate would have a pretty low mass to surface-area ratio. Combined with a lot a body hair it wouldn't need clothing.

Quote:
No proof of any kind and many sighters have either admitted hoaxes or been debunked
I think that theorethically they could of existed but I don't believe they exist because somebody should of shot one by now. We should of had a body at least by the turn of the last century.
Uncle Effort is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 01:46 AM   #3
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,896
One question sir.... I can understand that man, in his beguiling cleverness, invented insulated high-top hiking boots to use on the trek, but if apes would freeze their feet, then what of, say, wolves, deer, cats, yaks, mastodons, rhinocerii and other animals that likewise eschew footwear for the feeling of frozen grass between their toes, hooves and paws?

Unless, of course, you were jokingly making some kind of point, as am I.

Quote:
An animal like a giant Ape has too much body mass. Black Bears, you say! No, black bears don't really hibernate like true hibernators, hibernation is a body function that changes the body in lots of ways and if they don't hide, they're pretty well helpless; Bears semi-hibernate and go outside and feed during winter...not every day, but they're there.
And an ape cannot do the same thing? What are you, some kind of ursinary chauvinist? I say hibernation is a state of mind, and apes can be anything they want to be. They could have done it for the gipper!

Last edited by shadron; 23rd August 2008 at 01:54 AM.
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 04:31 AM   #4
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Gene L, you make some good points but if I may, I think your arguments need a little refinement. Bigfoot, as commonly described to us by Bigfot enthusiasts, is just the dumbest thing ever. It's painfully stupid.

Footers would have us believe that the entire North American continent in all manner of habitats is populated by maybe multiple species of giant 8ft bipedal primates. We are told of how they often approach human civilization and display aggressive or curious behaviours. In spite of this they encourage us to think that the reason why one of what would be the largest land mammals in North America has not been identified and described by science is that they are the masters of stealth and too clever to fall prey to the many hazards posed by humankind. Though hunters shooting eachother accidentally is no rare thing (just ask the current Vice President of the United States), hunters have never shot a Bigfoot because they look too human. They may give you anecdotes of a Bigfoot being shot by a hunter but the body disposed of for fear of prosecution.

A Footer will quickly get irrate and scoff at the idea of people thinking they are dumb enough to believe in a singular Bigfoot. What they don't realize is that a big nudist hermit with hypertrichosis is far more plausible than the everywhere yet nowhere sasquatch.

I think it would be more apt to say "why Bigfoot is just really painfully the dumbest thing ever," rather than "why Bigfoot can't exist." A small population of reclusive upright apes living in some secluded valley in the Pacific NorthWest is not an impossibility but never let a Footer try to pass that off as the concept. Footers like our SweatyYeti would have us believe that Bigfoot will come into human habitation such a Valatie, New York and spook people by the road.

In our modern world the living great apes consist of the chimpanzees, bonobos, mountain and lowland gorillas, and orangutans. All of them live in jungle-type enviroments with heavy precipitation. During the Miocene epoch, from 22 million to 5.5 million years ago we know of around 100 species of ape in the Old World. Many of those apes such as Dryopithecus in Europe and Sivapithecus in Asia lived in temperate forested climates much the same as purported Bigfoot climates.

Here is a good article from Scientific American on Miocene apes:

http://www.primates.com/history/index.html

One does not need to look into antiquity though to see that the argument about the cold of Siberia preventing ape access to North America is not exactly solid. Though not apes Japanese snow monkeys do just fine with the cold.

What simply is the best argument against Bigfoot is that no matter how stealthy a species of giant bipedal primate existing across the continent in breeding numbers is absolutely going to be found. People live and work year-round in the environments we are told are being inhabited by Bigfoot yet we have not one shred of reliable evidence for their presence. Footers will bore you with talk of prints yet many of what are considered by Bigfoot enthusiasts to be the best are so ridiculous looking it's hard not to laugh.

They will tell you of sightings by perfectly sane people of Bigfoot and you can tell them about the same for goat suckers, Grey aliens, and Jesus returned. Bigfoot is a social construct made by European descended North Americans. They brought their woodwoses, trolls, and ogres with them repackaged for the New Frontier. Most Footers we suspect deep down know very well Bigfoot is a myth but they keep a straight face and play Woods and Wildmen because it's fun and they get to meet other people who can reaffirm their maverick thinker status. Will you be at the Texas conference this year? You betcha, we'll roast some dogs.

Bigfoot, so dumb it hurts.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 04:42 AM   #5
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Uncle Effort View Post
Lack of evidence is not the same as it can't exist here.
Would you agree that lack of evidence is problematic?

Quote:
Seen any wolverines lately. Very rare and solitary, but they still breed.
Wolverines are not good comparison for Bigfoot. We have wolverines to look at and study. We observe them directly. Wolverines don't shadow you in the woods and chuck pinecones at you. Wolverines don't level the forest chasing you. Wolverines don't throw pigs.
Quote:
I don't believe they exist because somebody should of shot one by now.
We agree. BTW, welcome to the JREF.

ETA: Uncle Effort, disregard my first question. I saw from your post in the PGF thread you made the some of the same points.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 23rd August 2008 at 04:54 AM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 07:00 AM   #6
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
Maybe I should have posted something like "Why Six-foot Mosquitos Can't Exist in America" (current sci-fi channel movie.) The primary reason is that six-foot mosquitos don't exist. But this doesn't diminish the other reasons.

The Japanese monkeys spend a lot of time in hot pools, if I remember correctly. They get periodic relief and are restricted to the area where warmth is available. However, a seven foot ape has much different requirements from a two-foot monkey.

As far as other mammals, the ones that made the trip for the most part had prtective hooves, or pads on their feet that had less nerve endings than primates.

I'm sure if you took a mountain gorillia and put it in the NW, it would die from malnutrition or from the weather. They are restricted by their biological needs, which is one reason why they don't raid villages in Africa.
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 07:59 AM   #7
Alareth
Expert Expertologist
 
Alareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,575
I don't care what evidence against bigfoot you come up with, Harry and the Hendersons is staying on my list of favorite movies.
__________________
Pixelated Reality | Alareth Does Art!

Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak
Alareth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 08:00 AM   #8
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
Maybe I should have posted something like "Why Six-foot Mosquitos Can't Exist in America" (current sci-fi channel movie.) The primary reason is that six-foot mosquitos don't exist. But this doesn't diminish the other reasons.

The Japanese monkeys spend a lot of time in hot pools, if I remember correctly. They get periodic relief and are restricted to the area where warmth is available. However, a seven foot ape has much different requirements from a two-foot monkey.

As far as other mammals, the ones that made the trip for the most part had prtective hooves, or pads on their feet that had less nerve endings than primates.

I'm sure if you took a mountain gorillia and put it in the NW, it would die from malnutrition or from the weather. They are restricted by their biological needs, which is one reason why they don't raid villages in Africa.
Well see, six-foot mosquitoes, there you go. We can with confidence argue why there are no monster-sized insects due to it being a physical impossibility based on the oxygen content of the atmosphere (have a look at the late Carboniferous massive flying insect, Meganeura from when the content was higher. Wingspan of 2.5 feet).

Japanese macaques, which are the current northern-most living primates, will use natural hot springs but it is not what allows them to survive temperatures up to -15c. There is also the Chinese golden snub-nosed monkey that can withstand colder temperatures than any other primate. They feed mostly on lichen and inner tree bark.

But you are correct, monkeys are not great apes. But, as I said, Miocene apes were living in temperate forested mountainous areas similar to North America. Here is a cool link showing some of the creatures of Beringia (Bering land bridge) such as the scimitar cat and the giant Jeffery's ground sloth:

http://www.beringia.com/01/01maina.html

I just want to reiterate that we agree on why Bigfoot does not exist but I disagree on the premise that they couldn't exist, particularily from a climatological perspective.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 08:19 AM   #9
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
We agree, and we disagree. No apes have ever existed in America, and there must be a reaons, given evolution and the spread of species. Just about everything has existed everwhere it's possible for them to exist...monkeys in Japan, camels in N. America and Africa, ant-eaters in S. America and Africa. But you don't have marsupials in Antartica, even though it's fairly close to Australia. Can't live there.

I stand by my first assertion, that 7-foot apes can't exist in America. You could take a colony of, say, mice from Africa and plant them here, and likely they'd do quite well. But the more complicated life-forms get, the more specialized (generally) they get and the more dependent upon their accustomed environment. They either adapt to climate changes, or they die out. To adapt, they need a fairly large population base and/or the ability to make tools.

Lots of "imported" species have made adaptations to America in our lifetimes. Pheasants, even, I hear, ostriches. New Zealand is an example where lots of ungulates have adapted to the environment, presumably because they lack predation and becuase the plant food is plentiful for animals with ungulate stomachs. Cows do pretty well in non-dosmesticated situations; they become a nusiance in my county, and are regularly rounded up by guys on horses and four-wheelers, held for claim for the required time, and sold.

But a 7-foot ape? Impossible!
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 08:35 AM   #10
Delvo
Illuminator
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,824
Gorillas and humans have already both departed from the standard ape diet in different ways; there's no reason to think another one couldn't have in another way. Certainly, much larger herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores did exist in North America pretty recently, and they ate something, as do the few remaining megafauna here (bears, cougars, elk, deer, moose, buffalo, open-range horses & cattle).

The real problem is not that it couldn't happen; it's that it couldn't happen and still remain any more unknown and mysterious to us than bears and elk are.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 08:38 AM   #11
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil
Posts: 7,965
I would not use "impossible" in this case (*). I would use "not supported by currently available reliable evidence".

Lets do a thought experiement and suppose bigfeet are real but the evidences available are those we currently have. Given the existence of convergent evolution, without a body or a good DNA signature, there's no way you can know if its related to homo, gorillas, orang-utangs, howler monkeys, australopithecines, etc. So, its very hard to say (assuming they were real) they could not live in North America, cross Beringia or evolved somewhere in the Americas.

(*) Unless we are talking about paranormal bigfeet, shape-shifing bigfeet, interdimensional bigfeet, pigfeet with crossbows, etc.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 08:49 AM   #12
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
You could make the same premise that unicors exist, or leprachauns, as someone said in another thread. They don't. Anywhere, and never have.

So, the idea the bigfoot could exist, goes to the basic idea that it would be a possibility, and I reject that argument. No such ape ever existed, so far as we know, and therefore none could exist in North America.

A vegetarian diet would require a fairly stationary animal, or a huge supply of green food. Cows, bison, all had plains to feed on. But wherever they went, except for environmental disaster, there was food. Carnivores exist by eating herbavores, and if there's a supply of one, there has to be a supply of the other.

To think Bigfoot might exist is two skips away from believing Bigfoot does exist. You have to accept the first to believe the second.
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 08:52 AM   #13
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
We agree, and we disagree. No apes have ever existed in America, and there must be a reaons, given evolution and the spread of species.[snip]

But a 7-foot ape? Impossible!
Also one problem we must consider is that a major faction within Bigfootery consider Bigfoot to be not an ape but rather of the Homo line such as homo erectus. We should keep in mind homo erectus' range was huge, having ranged from Africa to Europe to Northeast Asia. Homo erectus had no footwear yet we know they lived in places where it snowed. There is also homo antecessor and homo heidelburgensis to consider. Homo heidelburgensis is thought to be the ancestor of homo neanderthalensis in Europe between 400,000 and 500,000 years ago. The advent of footwear is not thought to have come about until roughly 40,000 years ago.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 09:12 AM   #14
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
To think Bigfoot might exist is two skips away from believing Bigfoot does exist. You have to accept the first to believe the second.
I disagree with this. A hypothetical bipedal primate living in temperate forest area is not a woo concept. I think it's a huge jump to take that concept and come up with Bigfoot. As I already said, Bigfoot is painfully stupid. Any place that could support a black bear could support our hypothetical Bigfoot. The stupid part comes in when you suggest that we would miss them. We should be watching old episodes of Lorne Green's New Wilderness with a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating some liver or hitting the salmon run. Salmon runs in Bigfoot territory with every predator showing up but no Bigfoot should be telling these Footers that something's fishy.

BTW, if Bigfoot was real Lorne Green's New Wilderness would have taken a Bigfoot and a black bear, put them in cages for a few days with no food, and them filmed them pummeling eachother over a fish like they just came across it.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 09:19 AM   #15
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,723
Where's the Bigfoot POOP?

You can find the poop of every other NA land living invertrebrate. Is Bigfoot somehow special that he does not poop or hides it all -- successfully?

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 09:39 AM   #16
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,223
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
Where's the Bigfoot POOP?

You can find the poop of every other NA land living invertrebrate. Is Bigfoot somehow special that he does not poop or hides it all -- successfully?

It poops in the rivers. That's where giardiasis comes from.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 09:44 AM   #17
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,223
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
You could make the same premise that unicors exist, or leprachauns, as someone said in another thread. They don't. Anywhere, and never have.

So, the idea the bigfoot could exist, goes to the basic idea that it would be a possibility, and I reject that argument. No such ape ever existed, so far as we know, and therefore none could exist in North America.

A vegetarian diet would require a fairly stationary animal, or a huge supply of green food. Cows, bison, all had plains to feed on. But wherever they went, except for environmental disaster, there was food. Carnivores exist by eating herbavores, and if there's a supply of one, there has to be a supply of the other.

To think Bigfoot might exist is two skips away from believing Bigfoot does exist. You have to accept the first to believe the second.
What about the extinct giant ape thing some people try to equate to bigfoot? You know, the one Munns make the statue of? Gigantopithecus? (Ouch, please excuse whe pathetic grammar.)
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 23rd August 2008 at 09:47 AM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 10:17 AM   #18
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
What is needed is a Bigfoot Poop-Posse.
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 10:53 AM   #19
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Falconer, NY
Posts: 11,809
Bigfoot is hard to find, and hard to find any trace of bigfoot be it hair, poopy, body, tools, etc, for one very simple reason.


All bigfoot train as ninja from the time the are born. It's the perfect explanation.
tyr_13 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 01:55 PM   #20
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,723
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
It poops in the rivers. That's where giardiasis comes from.
Well Castor Canadensis will be real glad to hear that; the poor little blighters usally get the blame.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 10:10 PM   #21
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,852
I already told you.

Bigfoot is everywhere and nowhere.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 01:34 AM   #22
Madalch
The Jester
 
Madalch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The wet coast.
Posts: 9,434
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Wolverines don't shadow you in the woods and chuck pinecones at you.
Of course not- those are woodchucks.
__________________
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius
It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker
Madalch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 01:36 AM   #23
Steelmage
Muse
 
Steelmage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
All other apes are herbivorious. (Chimps will eat meat rarely)
I remember watching a program on TV where a adult chimp kill a baby chimp and ate it. Chimps are omnivorous.

Also there is this:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/1418/...ng-habits.html

Quote:
Eating habits
Chimpanzees are omnivorous, eating both meat and plant material. Their diet includes fruits, leaves, buds, seeds, pith, bark, insects, bird eggs, and smaller mammals. Chimpanzees have been observed to kill baboons, other monkeys, and young bush pigs, and they sometimes practice cannibalism. Chimps eat up to 200-300 species of plants, depending on local availability.

Chimpanzees seem to know the medicinal value of certain plants. In the Gombe National Forest in Tanzania, chimps have been seen to eat the plant Apilia mossambicensis to help rid themselves of parasites in their digestive system. A branch of science, zoopharmacognosy, has recently developed to study the medicinal use of plants by wild animals.

Fruit is the main component of the chimpanzee diet, and they spend at least four hours a day finding and eating varieties of this food. In the afternoon chimps also spend another hour or two feeding on young leaves. They also eat quantities of insects that they collect by hand, or in the case of termites, using simple tools. Chimpanzees break open the hard shells of nuts with sticks or smash them between two rocks. Animal prey is eaten less regularly than fruits and leaves. Chimpanzees (usually males) will regularly kill and eat young pigs, monkeys, and antelopes.

Chimpanzees are able to devise simple tools to assist in finding food and for other activities. They use stones to smash open nuts, sticks for catching termites, and they peel leaves from bamboo shoots for use as wash cloths to wipe off dirt or blood, and to collect rainwater from tree-cavities. The use of tools by chimpanzees varies from region to region, which indicates that it is a learned behavior. Young chimps have been observed to imitate their elders in the use of tools, and to fumble with the activity until they eventually become proficient.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Chimpanzee :

Quote:
Diet
Although omnivorous, its diet is mainly vegetarian, consisting of fruits, leaves, nuts, seeds, tubers, and other miscellaneous vegetation, supplemented by insects and small prey. There are also instances of organized hunting; in some cases, such as the killing of Leopard cubs, and galagos this primarily seems to be a protective effort, since the Leopard is the main natural predator of the Common Chimpanzee. However, the Common Chimpanzee sometimes band together and hunt Western Red Colobus Monkeys (Piliocolobus badius) for meat. Isolated cases of cannibalism have been documented. Chimpanzees have also been known on rare occasions to attack and eat human infants.[5]

The West African Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) is the only animal besides humans known to routinely create and use specialized tools specifically for hunting. Chimpanzees near Kédougou, Senegal were observed to create spears by breaking off tree limbs, stripping them of their bark, and sharpening one end with their teeth. They then used these weapons to kill galagos sleeping in hollows.[6]
So I think you may want to do some more research before printing that out and showing it to a cryptozologist, some of these people do study zoology.
As for bigfoot, a 10' ft tall ape would have probably be spotted by now and catch so it is unlikely that he exists.

Last edited by Steelmage; 24th August 2008 at 01:38 AM.
Steelmage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 05:44 AM   #24
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
So, you're saying chimps eat meat rarely?
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 06:25 AM   #25
moopet
binary decision maker
 
moopet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 705
No green card.
moopet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 06:33 AM   #26
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Steelmage View Post
So I think you may want to do some more research before printing that out and showing it to a cryptozologist, some of these people do study zoology.
Please note: exception, not rule.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 06:38 AM   #27
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
Yep, if you major in Cryptozoology with a speciality in Bigfoot Studies, you can write your own ticket on Wall Street.
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 06:46 AM   #28
snoop_doxie
Scholar
 
snoop_doxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 112
No green card.

they should not need green cards if they are native to North America. wait, do the canadians have a green card?

we could give them green cards, and force them to catch those sneaky pine-cone throwing woodchucks!
snoop_doxie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 06:46 AM   #29
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
Yep, if you major in Cryptozoology with a speciality in Bigfoot Studies, you can write your own ticket on Wall Street.
You may then qualify for a PhD in Cryptopsychology - the study of hidden intellect.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 10:39 AM   #30
Steelmage
Muse
 
Steelmage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
So, you're saying chimps eat meat rarely?
I am saying chimps will eat meat more frequently then people give them credit. They are always eating insects, and other small animals. In some cases, they will eat other animals as the above examples.
Steelmage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 11:05 AM   #31
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 32,863
Originally Posted by Madalch View Post
Of course not- those are woodchucks.
If they look like ducks they are junior woodchucks.
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 11:16 AM   #32
ImaginalDisc
Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants
 
ImaginalDisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 10,225
There have never been confirmed reports or specimens of a supposedly towering ape. If big foot is solitary then it has to make an effort to find mates and breed, and that'd mean either covering a lot of ground, or making some kind of signal, like noises. Why haven't we seen bigfoots looking for mates scouring the countryside, or crooning for mates?

If they're communal, then they'd be significant competitors for other large mammals in their habitat, and should be easy to find because we make extensive studies of the health and progress of many herbivore populations across the continent. Why haven't we detected signs of its browsing, or the effect it has in interacting with competitors?

If it's indigenous, why haven't we ever found fossils?

If it's a recent arrival why haven't we found recent fossils from where it originated?

If it's herbivorous then it should be relatively abundant, making evading detecting as a population hard.

If it's a scavenger, why hasn't it been seen near carcasses, and why hasn't its tooth marks ever been found on its food, or its eating habits been noted? A coyote, vulture, rat, puma, and other animals who scavenge don't scavenge the same way. They can't. They have different tools for the job.

If it's predatory, that makes it even easier to find. No two predators kill and consume prey in exactly the same way. We'd see patterns in the kills of their prey. Why hasn't any pattern of kills ever been observed that doesn't match wolves, bears, pumas, or other large North American mammals?

If it is ever predated upon, even killed by an animal it comes into conflict with, why have remains never been found outside a cougar den, dragged there to feed hungry cubs, or washed up by a bank, after a bear chasing salmon got tired of competition?

It's an animal which leaves no traces in the environment of any kind?

Really?
__________________
Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. -HK-47

Last edited by ImaginalDisc; 24th August 2008 at 11:43 AM.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 12:05 PM   #33
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 32,863
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
There have never been confirmed reports or specimens of a supposedly towering ape. If big foot is solitary then it has to make an effort to find mates and breed, and that'd mean either covering a lot of ground, or making some kind of signal, like noises. Why haven't we seen bigfoots looking for mates scouring the countryside, or crooning for mates?

If they're communal, then they'd be significant competitors for other large mammals in their habitat, and should be easy to find because we make extensive studies of the health and progress of many herbivore populations across the continent. Why haven't we detected signs of its browsing, or the effect it has in interacting with competitors?

If it's indigenous, why haven't we ever found fossils?

If it's a recent arrival why haven't we found recent fossils from where it originated?

If it's herbivorous then it should be relatively abundant, making evading detecting as a population hard.

If it's a scavenger, why hasn't it been seen near carcasses, and why hasn't its tooth marks ever been found on its food, or its eating habits been noted? A coyote, vulture, rat, puma, and other animals who scavenge don't scavenge the same way. They can't. They have different tools for the job.

If it's predatory, that makes it even easier to find. No two predators kill and consume prey in exactly the same way. We'd see patterns in the kills of their prey. Why hasn't any pattern of kills ever been observed that doesn't match wolves, bears, pumas, or other large North American mammals?

If it is ever predated upon, even killed by an animal it comes into conflict with, why have remains never been found outside a cougar den, dragged there to feed hungry cubs, or washed up by a bank, after a bear chasing salmon got tired of competition?

It's an animal which leaves no traces in the environment of any kind?

Really?
I've always wondered why some of the footers don't hire a plane with an IR camera like the ones that wildlife departments use to do animal surveys.

Last I checked the planes rented for 125 an hour so it should not be too expensive.

Unless bigfoot doesn't emit IR!!

Last edited by tsig; 24th August 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason: d
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 12:43 PM   #34
Gene L
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Steelmage View Post
I am saying chimps will eat meat more frequently then people give them credit. They are always eating insects, and other small animals. In some cases, they will eat other animals as the above examples.
Insects aren't meat, in my looking at it. Termites, etc, but that ain't meat.

It's insects. Heck humans eat insects rarely too. And some humans eat no meat at all, but generally humans do eat meat and don't eat insects.
Gene L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 01:23 PM   #35
ImaginalDisc
Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants
 
ImaginalDisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 10,225
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
Insects aren't meat, in my looking at it. Termites, etc, but that ain't meat.

It's insects. Heck humans eat insects rarely too. And some humans eat no meat at all, but generally humans do eat meat and don't eat insects.
Few mammals are exclusively dedicated to any particular food source. Even koalas, extremely specialized herbivores, have been observed eating insects. Deer have been observed eating fish. Anteaters who may have the most specialized mouth and tongue structures of any mammal, sometimes eat honey and fruit (Very small fruit, I'm sure.) The common mammalian ancestor was omnivorous, and no matter how specialized any living mammals are, we all have some hold over ability to eat things that aren't common to our diet.
__________________
Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. -HK-47
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 03:14 PM   #36
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 8,736
Originally Posted by Uncle Effort View Post
Seen any wolverines lately. Very rare and solitary, but they still breed.
They are also small, and well-documented. There are plenty of living examples, as well as innumerable preserved specimens and reams of photos and videos of them in their natural habitat.

By contrast, we have Sasquatch, roughly the size of a black bear, with no solid documentation of any sort, no reliable sightings, and no reliable secondary evidence. If Sasquatches existed, they would have to be as numerous and obvious as black bears in order to continue to exist.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 03:39 PM   #37
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 8,736
Originally Posted by Steelmage View Post
I remember watching a program on TV where a adult chimp kill a baby chimp and ate it. Chimps are omnivorous.
But, as noted in the article you quoted, mainly vegetarians. The best description of Chimpanzees and other Great Apes is "primary vegetarians, but opportunistic omnivores". They share this classification with a number of other mammals, including rats and other rodents, and swine. Cannibalism appears to be predominantly the result of population pressures and developmental deformities, and in that respect, is also similar to a number of other mammals. Humans, by contrast, are obligate omnivores, but can become strict vegetarians with minor technological assistance.

The degree of omnivourousness varies between species, with Bonobos being the most omnivorous, and Gorillas the least. None of them are obligate omnivores like Humans.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2008, 08:03 PM   #38
Delvo
Illuminator
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,824
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I've always wondered why some of the footers don't hire a plane with an IR camera like the ones that wildlife departments use to do animal surveys... Unless bigfoot doesn't emit IR!!
That's it! Slow metabolism! It explains both why IR detectors wouldn't pick their signals up and why they don't seem to eat enough or move around enough or make enough noise to be detected often. They're like big furry bipedal lizards!
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2008, 12:55 AM   #39
MDI
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4
That could be it, they evolved from the new world monkeys' from SouthAmerica and not from the Austrolopithicines in Asia. But seriously if we can trace the line back as far as Ramapithicus at 8 million years ago from fossil records, i think we might know if old bigfoot was still around, it is likely there was one but it seems our bad ass cousin Homo erectus out competed him into extinction between 2 and 1 million years ago.
MDI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2008, 07:05 AM   #40
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil
Posts: 7,965
Originally Posted by Gene L View Post
You could make the same premise that unicors exist, or leprachauns, as someone said in another thread. They don't. Anywhere, and never have.

So, the idea the bigfoot could exist, goes to the basic idea that it would be a possibility, and I reject that argument. No such ape ever existed, so far as we know, and therefore none could exist in North America.

A vegetarian diet would require a fairly stationary animal, or a huge supply of green food. Cows, bison, all had plains to feed on. But wherever they went, except for environmental disaster, there was food. Carnivores exist by eating herbavores, and if there's a supply of one, there has to be a supply of the other.

To think Bigfoot might exist is two skips away from believing Bigfoot does exist. You have to accept the first to believe the second.
I disagree with some of your arguments. It seems we are actually heading towards a more philosophically-inclined discussion. I suggest you to take a look at this thread (if you hadn't done it yet, of course): http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...ight=wagg+jeff
It ends in what is basically a semantic debate between those with bigger philosophical affiliations and those more pratically-minded, but you'll get the points from both sides. The basic question is "are there claims which we can safely say will never be backed by reliable evidence"?

My practical and perhaps cynical position is that if a claim does not challenges physical laws, then I will not and can not say its "impossible" and that reliable evidence to back it will never show up. I will say its "implausible", "unlikely", "not backed by available reliable evidence", etc. Even if I am sure the claim is not real, I will still try to follow this guideline. Universal flood, Atlantis, Santa Claus, homeopathy, breatharians - these are examples of impossible claims. They challenge the laws of physics. I am sure no reliable evidence for them will ever appear; I am sure they are impossible and I can honestly say that they are not real, they can not be real - at least their most common versions.

However I can not say a bigfoot-like species never existed, especially because there were some; check http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=130 . I can't also say its impossible for large apes to evolve and adapt to colder climates; I am not aware of any major impediments for this. Note that if something does not happens or happened this does not means that this "something" is actually impossible. It may just be unlikely or it never happened by sheer chance.

So, the basic problem with bigfoot is shared by unicorns- its the fact that if they were real, a certain number of reliable evidences of their presence should have been found by now. And they were not. Individually, for each absent piece of evidence, a footer can create an explanation (yep, some are pretty lame). When you sum the excuses you end up with something extremely implausible -winning the lotto is a piece of cake when compared with this. But the core (a large bipedal North American ape) is not actually impossible. Of course, even without entering the paranormal versions, there are versions of bigfoot which are so implausible that border the impossible- say, bigfeet with glowing eyes living everywhere but being nowhere.

If you consider the whole bigfoot lore, yep, I agree, its impossible. But if you single out (actually build by arbitrarilly picking up pieces of the lore) a large bipedal North American ape, its not actually impossible. Its highly unlikely since its not supported by available reliable evidence.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.