Look: I’m not a Bigfoot “believer”, per se. The truth is I don’t know whether such a creature exists or not. I’m entirely agnostic when it comes to the existence of a large, hairy, unknown to modern science, bi-pedal primate currently inhabiting the North American continent. So, I’m not a “believer”, nor am I an unbeliever. I am, however, fairly extensively informed on the subject and I hold it as a possibility — if not quite a probability. I’m interested by the question. I’m curious. But, I hold no solid opinion on the veracity of such a creature’s ultimate existence one way or the other. I do support every reasonable attempt to explore the possibility, though.
But, do you want to know what really bothers me? I’ll tell you: The incredible stupidity that appears to be a constituent part of the mind of what seems to be a very many unbelievers. If you’re one of these people, here are some words of advice for you: Logical fallacies do nothing to support your position. Being woefully ill-informed on a subject in which you hold such a strong opinion does nothing but to expose you as a moron. (Only morons hold strong opinions on subjects in which they hold very little accurate information.)
Yeah, yeah, yeah… I know, there’s plenty of ridiculous and stupid believers too. But, I don’t find them nearly as annoying. They strike me more as just silly clowns that can be easily denied any serious consideration and wholly ignored. The ridiculous unbelievers, however, seriously rub me the wrong way — mostly, I believe, because they so often seem to think they’re on the side of intelligence, reason, rationality, etc. — often even seeming as though they hold some sort of monopoly on such things. When, in actuality, they’re really just incredibly stupid individuals. That’s exquisitely irksome to me. I find stupidity coupled with arrogance to be exceedingly infuriating. If you’re stupid and humble, I’m good with you. If you’re arrogant and intelligent, I’m good with you. If you’re intelligent and humble, I’m good with you in spades. If you’re stupid and arrogant, however, you must be destroyed.
But, getting back to the matter at hand: Having an interest in the Sasquatch subject, I tend to frequent places on the internet which discuss such things. And, I seek out new information regarding the subject on a somewhat regular basis. In so doing, I often come across places where people are voicing their opinions regarding the subject matter. And, as such, I very often — almost invariably — run into such “Bigfoot deniers” who are obviously very dull minded people by nature, possess a woefully stunted capacity for logical thought, are astoundingly misinformed or uninformed on the subject, yet nevertheless, hold a strong negative opinion and an obviously staunch desire to bring others around to their conclusions. And, I’m just not comfortable with people being brought around to conclusions that have been arrived at through ignorance and stupidity. (Please note that the use of the word “such” before “Bigfoot deniers” indicates that I’m speaking of a select group of “Bigfoot deniers.” Before idiots start complaining about it, I’m not claiming that anyone who denies the existence of Bigfoot is stupid. I’m claiming that a significant portion of people who who do are stupid.)
I recently encountered one such person on an internet message forum, and, his words being typical of such a person, I will use his words as examples, provide answers to those examples, and point out why anyone expressing such ideas is an idiot. During the conversation taking place, this person made the very declarative and absolute claim: “We DO know for a FACT that these species don’t exist.” (Emphasis his) He then proceeded to parrot a laundry list of logically fallacious inanities to support his assertion while claiming these opinions as “evidence” (Opinions regarding anything are evidence of nothing that exists outside of the person holding them.)
So, without further ado, here’s a razor-sharp smack-down of one such typical addle-minded toad who goes by the screen name: “Your_Daddy”
1.) “just because we haven’t discovered all the species out there doesn’t mean we don’t know what certainly ISN’T out there.”
You’re right. It’s not “just because” of that. It is, in fact, mostly because of something that’s commonly referred to as “logic.” What you’re engaging in here is a well known logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam — or, an argument from ignorance. It’s logically fallacious reasoning, and you’re a moron for using it. We can’t know what isn’t out there because we have no data on what isn’t out there. If we did, it wouldn’t be not out there. Things which don’t exist do not provide data on themselves.
Of course, we can look at data that we do have and extrapolate probabilities for the potential existence of some imagined idea, but doing such never goes beyond the realm of educated opinion — OPINION. Such guesswork is never empirical, by any stretch of the imagination. It’s “evidence” of nothing. The fact of the matter is we can’t “know what certainly isn’t out there.” We can guess; we can’t know. Yours is an entirely irrational statement that you should be horrifically embarrassed at having made.
We can “know” that an unknown, large bi-pedal primate “certainly isn’t out there” with exactly the same accuracy as we could know, prior to its discovery, that the Mountain Gorilla didn’t exist. Your statement is ridiculous. You’re stupid. You should feel shame.
2) “We DO know for a FACT that these species don’t exist. They don’t fit into any food chain. Know how we know that? Because of fucking science”
No. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. There is currently no scientific work which has ever been done that has studied how a large, bi-pedal primate inhabiting the North American continent does or does not fit into any food chain. You’ve pulled that directly out of your ass. If I’m wrong, direct me to the published work and I’ll retract my statement. Until then, you’re an idiot.
There may have been some scientist(s) who have claimed, due to scientific work they’re aware of having something to do with currently known feeding hierarchies, that they consider it unlikely that such a creature could exist. There’s a couple of problems with this, however. Firstly, it’s not science, it’s opinion. The opinions of scientists are still just opinions. They may be more educated opinions if they’re coming from scientists working in a relative field — meaning their opinions may be more trustworthy regarding the subject than the average person’s opinion — but opinions are still not science. And, because a scientist expresses an opinion, it’s disingenuous to say that the opinion is “fucking science.” It’s not. And, implying that an opinion counts as any sort of an argument for anything is, again, a logical fallacy — it’s called an “argumentum ad verecundiam “, or an “argument from authority”. And, again, it’s logically fallacious reasoning. Science stands or falls completely on its own merits — entirely independent of the opinions of any given scientist, or any given group of scientists. If it’s “fucking science” that such a creature does not exist, then show me the independently verifiable, published scientific work that arrives at this conclusion so that I may scrutinize the findings. Until then, shut the hell up about it being “fucking science.” It’s not science, and you’re a moron.
The second problem with the statement is that I doubt any real scientist would ever say this. If one did, I’d have to say that they’re probably not in the correct line of work. A person uttering such a statement is very likely just not cut out to be a scientist. The reason being that what we know of “food chains” is based on what we know of the species which occupy them. If a new species is discovered, our understanding of the food chain it occupies is altered to accommodate the new species — NOT the other way around. It would be entirely absurd to think that we could, for example, discover a type-specimen for a previously unknown species and discard it as hokum just because it didn’t fit in to our current understanding of the food chain which exists in its habitat. Instead, we would recognize that our understanding of the food chain is either in error or incomplete, and we’d do more science in order to correct our understanding. Science, for the most part, isn’t ridiculous. I’m not sure if you know that.
The idea that such a species doesn’t fit into any known food chain is any kind of a reasonable argument at all is pure idiocy. Of course it doesn’t fit into any known food chain — IT’S A FREAKIN’ UNKNOWN SPECIES! We don’t know anything about how such an animal might eat, and since we can’t know anything about how it might eat, we obviously can’t know anything about how it might fit into any currently known food chain. Your stupidity is mind boggling.
3) “If these 8-9 ft tall 5-600 lb. creatures are all packing away 5,000 calories worth of meat every day, where is the deficit in the animals/plants they are eating? Considering even a slight drop in the population of any given animal (or plant) causes large reverberations through the food chain“
Wow. You REALLY didn’t think this one through, huh? Why would there be any apparent “drop” in any animal or plant populations due to a pre-extant species? Do you think they all just began to nourish themselves last week, or something? Before that they successfully gained all the sustenance they required through absorbing fresh air and sunshine?
Tell me, if these creatures exist, what do they eat? And, what inventories have been done on the population levels of their prey species? Do they even eat meat? Where’s the scientific work that establishes that?
Let me fill you in on something that might surprise you — human beings actually don’t go out into the wild, count up every individual member of every species, then take meticulous account of exactly how much each and every one of the species which prays on those species has been eating of that species, and look for discrepancies which could be accounted for by the presence of an as of yet unknown predator. It doesn’t happen. It’s beyond our abilities. Such discrepancies may actually exist, but unless they were egregiously apparent, we’d never know about them. There is scientific work being done in this area, but it’s extrapolative in nature — it’s inferential. We take small samples here and small samples there and extrapolate conclusions — make educated guesses. Such work can never be used to reasonably rule out the existence of an unknown species.
4.) “Every year new species are discovered all over the world, but they all have one thing in common: unless they’re in the sea, they are all tiny”
– The Kobomani tapir (Tapirus kabomani) — discovered in 2013.
– The Myanmar Snub-nosed Monkey (Rhinopithecus strykeri) — discovered in 2010.
– The Pizzly-Bear hybrid — discovered in 2006.
– Burchell’s Zebra (Equus quagga burchellii) — discovered in 2004.
– The giant peccary (Pecari maximus) — discovered in 2000.
So, shut the hell up.
5.) “When was the last time you heard of a new species of giant elephant being discovered?”
Ummm… how about twelve years ago? Loxodonta africana — discovered in 2001.
6.) “Scientists have established that in order for the existence of Bigfoot to be a zoological possibility, there would have to be tens of thousands of them breeding.”
No. Scientists have “established” no such thing. You’re an idiot. Again, you’re mixing up the opinions of a single, or maybe a few, scientists (or maybe none, I don’t know — you very well might have pulled that directly out of your ass) with scientific fact. You consistently confabulate opinion with fact precisely because you’re a genuinely stupid person. Show me the independently verifiable scientific work that has been done on this. It doesn’t exist. You’re stating opinion as fact.
And, again, if any scientist is stating such an opinion as being evidence against the existence of such a creature, that scientist is also an idiot. (And, yes, some scientists are idiots — I’ve met one or two, believe me. The population of idiots among the scientific community might be significantly lower than it is in the general population, but it’s certainly not devoid of them.)
The reason for this is twofold:
(i) In order to get anything close to a reasonably accurate estimate for a population size required in order to maintain a viable breeding population, you need to have a fair amount of verified data on an animal’s habits. The required numbers necessary to maintain a viable breeding population varies greatly between species — factors which need to be considered are the specie’s nomadic tendencies, range of habitat, abilities with sense recognition, mating frequency, tendencies toward monogamy, sexual competitiveness, and on, and on, and on. What sort of data do we have regarding such factors with a Bigfoot creature? None? Well, that should tell you something about what we can say with any measure of confidence regarding any required population numbers that such a potential species must maintain in order to remain viable. Any scientist who says “The creature can’t exist because they’d need X number of members in order to remain viable” is, at best, speaking entirely unscientifically, and, at worst, a moron.
(ii) But, the probability is very, very high that such a scientist is, in fact, a moron, for the following reason: None of (i) matters at all. Why? Because who says the population needs to be viable? It’s not possible that the species is in an extinction, or even a bottle-neck phase? Most extinctions do not occur like the dinosaurs — where a species is, more or less, thriving one day and some major cataclysm wipes them all out the next. Most extinctions take place slowly, with numbers dwindling often over decades or sometimes even longer. There’s no reason why a North American Bigfoot type creature couldn’t or wouldn’t be going through such a phase. Any scientist that made the claim that small numbers are evidence for total non-existence has obviously failed to consider that possibility and, as such, has demonstrated themselves as a very stunted thinker — end of.
But, it gets worse, because actual extinction isn’t even required to account for a specie’s existence in light of a less than adequate breeding population. We’ve seen evidence of various species experiencing bottle-neck population reductions at some time in their history. Cheetah’s, for instance, once experienced such a reduction of their numbers that today every single cheetah on the planet is practically a genetic clone of every other cheetah. So closely related are they that transplantation of tissue from any given cheetah to any other given cheetah will not be rejected by the host. This suggests strongly that the cheetah, at some point, probably not that long ago evolutionarily speaking, experienced a drastic reduction in their numbers — most likely to levels far below their minimum viable population size. Cheetahs, however, as can happen, bounced back. But, what about when they were in the very leanest moments of their population crisis? Was their sparse numbers at the time evidence at all for their non-existence? How absolutely, ridiculously stupid and absurd to even suggest that such could be evidence against an animal’s existence.
Given that you have at least one male and one female, do you know how many individuals any species must be reduced to in order to ensure that extinction is not absolutely inescapable? Two. That’s it. Just Two. If you have at least one male and one female of a species, then extinction is not an absolute inevitability. It would be highly, highly, highly likely given those numbers, but it’s not an absolute certainty.
There’s no reason why, if a Bigfoot type creature exists, it can’t currently be experiencing such a reduction in its population. The creature might very well be experiencing such a bottle-neck, or be very close to outright extinction. Anyone — scientist or not — that uses a specie’s sparse numbers as an argument against existence is an unthinking idiot. So, drop the “Bigfoot can’t exist because there isn’t enough of them” argument. It’s stupid and illogical. If there are any, we don’t how many there are. If there’s only one, then guess what: You’re WRONG about them not existing, genius.
7) “how would such a massive population be able to successfully locate potential mates, if even humans are incapable of finding them?”
Yes, humans are much better at locating members of other species than are members of that species themselves. It’s not like nature has spent millions of years equipping them with detecting senses for their own kind that humans don’t possess or anything. It’s not like nature gave, say, male canines the ability to smell a female in estrous from up to two miles away, or anything. Or… hold on a tick! Yeah, it DID do that, didn’t it! Male wolverines, for example, have been known to track a female’s scent trail for several miles over the course of many days. New evidence suggests the mating range for some sharks extends for hundreds of kilometers. All of this, of course, translates into the fact that you’re a moron.
I’m sorry, but if you think humans are better at locating wild-species-X than are members of that wild-species-X, you’re an incredible dimwit. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
8) “And no sightings were ever reported prior to 1958”
I don’t know where you got this piece of incredible nonsense from. I suspect, being as obviously ill-informed as you are, you’re referring to the 1958 Gerold Crew incident, which was, I believe, the first time the name “Bigfoot” was popularized — but, it wasn’t the first sighting. Documented reports of large, hairy bi-pedal creatures have been occurring since the earliest colonizers arrived here. Such creatures, as well, exist in the oral traditions of the native peoples which far predate the earliest colonials. So, your statement is just untrue hogwash. This is widely, widely known. So, congratulations on holding a strong opinion on something that you’ve very obviously utterly failed to inform yourself regarding.
9) “In 1958, several gigantic footprints (later shown to be fake) were discovered around the area of Bluff Creek in California.”
Yeah, you’re talking about the Jerry Crew story. They were never “shown to be fake”. Family members of a known hoaxer claimed that he faked them. Other than the fact that the man (Ray Wallace) who was known to have hoaxed Bigfoot incidents after the 1958 Bluff Creek incident owned the company that the men finding the tracks worked for, no evidence has ever been brought forward to support this claim. Casts taken at the site at the time of the original story do not match any casts taken from fake tracks Wallace was known to have made. And, his known tracks match each other. Furthermore, when it has been pointed out that the Bluff Creek tracks were set in firm earth, not soft mud or sand, and that it would be impossible for a human, weighing much less than eight or nine hundred pounds or so, merely donning fake feet to leave such tracks, hyper-skeptics, desperate to cling to the “Wallace faked ’em” line have spun all sorts of radical rationalizations, such as: ‘Giant, concrete feet weighing 1,000 lbs or more were hauled up by the faker using logging cables.’ Or, ‘the fake feet were mounted on tractor treads’ …that, presumably via the use of magic, failed to leave any imprint other than the foot imprints themselves.
The Bluff Creek footprints might have been fake, or they might have been genuine. But, the phrases “They were shown to be fake” and “They were claimed to be fake” are two very different things. The latter one is true. The former is bullshit touted by an uninformed ignoramus. The fact that you seem unable to discern the difference speaks loads.