Sasquatch sighted near Slave Lake

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

The Saori antelope(?) of Vietnam was only discovered as fossils, or bones in 1992 and the live one was discovered in 2010.

The population density of Snow Leopards using several different methods of estimation is anywhere between about 1.6-5 in 100 square kilometers. That means there could be only one cat in over 15 000 acres. Snow Leopards are almost a silent cat, and might mewl, hiss, or wail, but can not roar like other big cats. It's generally accepted that cat's noses aren't the strongest out there, and cats usually aren't very stinky but by using scent markers the cat's find each other.

The supposed size, and reported smelliness of a Yeti, or Sasquatch, might make the range, and population density even smaller than Snow Leopard's.

There's about 40-50 new mammals discovered every year. Been that way since about the mid 1700s I believe. Some I'd consider more variations, than new, but there are new ones also.




They discover new dinosaurs all the time, also.



Just pointing out your double standard of "proof".

I don't know if there is, but there is a some compelling evidence.

I saw the show where they had the tiny antelope in Vietnam, but I had asked about new species in North America. There is a huge difference in the jungles of a third world country compared to the forest of a first world country with technology and oil and gas exploration, recreational users, and millions of hunters using trail cameras.

Having between 1.6 and 5 cats every 10km X 10km piece of land (and that’s an average including land inhabited by humans I assume) isn’t that sparse when you think about it, not to mention there is ample, undeniable evidence of the snow leopards existence.

It’s the supposed size and smelliness of the Sasquatch that furthers my disbelief in their existence. Anything that big and that smelly can’t go undetected imo. I don’t buy into the notion that dogs are too scared to track it, and they aren’t equipped with the teeth or claws to defend themselves from a grizzly attack, why hasn’t there been any found half eaten by a grizzly when the supposedly roam they same ground? They might have safety in numbers, but if there was a tribe of bigfeet, surely they would leave a mark.

Are they herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores? What do they eat in the winter and why has there never been a feeding ground discovered? An animal that size would need a lot of fuel to stay alive.

I don’t see where my double standard of proof is? The only compelling evidence I see all leans towards it not existing. I don’t think it’s coincidence that every shred of supposed evidence is so easily refuted.

Let’s be realistic, they need food and shelter to survive so let’s start there. Is there any proof of a Sasquatch feeding area or bedding area anywhere? If they bed down, they leave hair with dna. If they eat, they leave evidence of scat, where is the scat? If they are as advanced as some claim then we have to assume they go through adolescence. If you’ve ever had an adolescent teen you’ll know they aren’t the most cleansy or responsible creatures, they don’t always pick up after themselves and they like to rebel, same goes for gorillas, so I would assume it would be the same with Sasquatch.

Too much stuff just doesn’t add up.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

I don't know if there is, but there is a some compelling evidence.

Actually, there isn't. Not a shred of it from any credible source.

[JD848]

Come on KURT,not to often you get called handsome online.

I spent a few years logging in BC right across to Ontario over the past 40 years,the only thing I seen close to a Sasquatch was a girl that carried me from the bar to my hotel room in Churchill MAN .I weight 240 and 6' 2'' plus all my heavy winter clothing and she never put me down for 800 yards.


I woke up fully dressed and was very happy because saying no or I have a headache if she wanted her way I would have been in big trouble.This girl maybe a descendant of a sasquatch or an Olympian weight lifter .





I seen things from a distance over 2 miles and as I got close I realize the moose which I thought it was ,was really a huge black bear on small hill.

So what you see or think you see can really through you off.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 270person

Actually, there isn't. Not a shred of it from any credible source.

That’s just it, there is a whole lot of “cause I said so” but not one piece of solid credible evidence. Even the photos and videos are at the very best inconclusive, although I haven’t seen any that is inconclusive. Everything I’ve personally seen has been fake or a bear. Why is every picture either people dressed up as Bigfoot, bears, and photoshop? And most of it is so obvious.

Phillip Morris admitted he made the suit that was used in supposedly the most reliable film ever taken of Bigfoot, Bob Heironimus admitted to wearing it. Roger Patterson was known as a scammer, and Greg Long wrote a book about the hoax. The fact that the most reliable proof of its existence has been proven to be a hoax should say it all. Phillip Morris had absolutely nothing to gain from admitting he made the suit, he had a very successful business and didn’t need the plublicity, I tend to believe his story over a known scammer.

[YYC338]

Originally Posted by 270person

Actually, there isn't. Not a shred of it from any credible source.

C'mon, there's "compelling" evidence everywhere. Didn't you watch Finding Bigfoot on the animal planet channel?

They take every buba's eyewitness "testimony" as compelling and credible evidence and use that as well as every sound they hear in the bush as proof of Bigfoot's existence.

They've confirmed Bigfoot's in most of the lower 48. Now they my set the proof bar a little low for some folks, but there's no doubt.......IT'S ALIVE!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by JD848

Come on KURT,not to often you get called handsome online.

I spent a few years logging in BC right across to Ontario over the past 40 years,the only thing I seen close to a Sasquatch was a girl that carried me from the bar to my hotel room in Churchill MAN .I weight 240 and 6' 2'' plus all my heavy winter clothing and she never put me down for 800 yards.


I woke up fully dressed and was very happy because saying no or I have a headache if she wanted her way I would have been in big trouble.This girl maybe a descendant of a sasquatch or an Olympian weight lifter .





I seen things from a distance over 2 miles and as I got close I realize the moose which I thought it was ,was really a huge black bear on small hill.

So what you see or think you see can really through you off.

Hahaha! So true, and it never happens in real life!

I do believe 100% that people actually believe they see Bigfoot, but it’s exactly like what you say..... mistaken identity.

I’ve seen black bears so big I’ve mistaken them for moose, and once I even saw a moose that as I got closer turned out to be a huge whitetail with a nearly black coat. There’s a lot of weird anomalies out there, but so far I don’t believe any have been proven to be a Sasquatch.

[YYC338]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

We live in one of the more sparsely populated countries in the world, and nobody's covered all that area to "prove" that a very rare creature doesn't exist in small numbers.

...

By the way, how exactly do you prove something doesn't exist? Care to share the scientific process and procedure for that?

Because if it involves making that determination due to a complete lack of credible, compelling and documented evidence including, but not limited to DNA or even a specimen. Then I think we can safely say it's been proven that they don't exist.

[JD848]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Hahaha! So true, and it never happens in real life!

I do believe 100% that people actually believe they see Bigfoot, but it’s exactly like what you say..... mistaken identity.

I’ve seen black bears so big I’ve mistaken them for moose, and once I even saw a moose that as I got closer turned out to be a huge whitetail with a nearly black coat. There’s a lot of weird anomalies out there, but so far I don’t believe any have been proven to be a Sasquatch.

When you see the back end of a bear or moose running up small hill and then dipping down in thick timber with lots of under brush you really don't know what you seen.Then it pops out 500 yards away in an opening and yes it was a moose or a very large bear,i seen this happen so many times in my life I stopped counting.

Only when they catch one or find the whole body of one that died will I believe it.
There's certain groups that tell all kinda stories in BC on these things just to keep some folks from finding there grow opps.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I saw the show where they had the tiny antelope in Vietnam, but I had asked about new species in North America. There is a huge difference in the jungles of a third world country compared to the forest of a first world country with technology and oil and gas exploration, recreational users, and millions of hunters using trail cameras.

Having between 1.6 and 5 cats every 10km X 10km piece of land (and that’s an average including land inhabited by humans I assume) isn’t that sparse when you think about it, not to mention there is ample, undeniable evidence of the snow leopards existence.

It’s the supposed size and smelliness of the Sasquatch that furthers my disbelief in their existence. Anything that big and that smelly can’t go undetected imo. I don’t buy into the notion that dogs are too scared to track it, and they aren’t equipped with the teeth or claws to defend themselves from a grizzly attack, why hasn’t there been any found half eaten by a grizzly when the supposedly roam they same ground? They might have safety in numbers, but if there was a tribe of bigfeet, surely they would leave a mark.

Are they herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores? What do they eat in the winter and why has there never been a feeding ground discovered? An animal that size would need a lot of fuel to stay alive.

I don’t see where my double standard of proof is? The only compelling evidence I see all leans towards it not existing. I don’t think it’s coincidence that every shred of supposed evidence is so easily refuted.

Let’s be realistic, they need food and shelter to survive so let’s start there. Is there any proof of a Sasquatch feeding area or bedding area anywhere? If they bed down, they leave hair with dna. If they eat, they leave evidence of scat, where is the scat? If they are as advanced as some claim then we have to assume they go through adolescence. If you’ve ever had an adolescent teen you’ll know they aren’t the most cleansy or responsible creatures, they don’t always pick up after themselves and they like to rebel, same goes for gorillas, so I would assume it would be the same with Sasquatch.

Too much stuff just doesn’t add up.

Sorry, said that wrong. 100 * 100 km. 100 km squared. It would be 1.6 cats on the low end to nearly 2.5 million acres.

Vietnam has 3 times the people Canada does, and is also 1/30 the size, so you're looking at 90 times the population density.

So if that deer escaped notice with 90 times the chance of being seen, by area, what are the chances that something warier with a very low population density can escape being caught?

[Kurt505]

I like the way Joe Rohan thinks, he is a realist. He had a show, the series was on Netflix, it was called Jo Rogan Questions Everything. He looks into all sorts of myths and legends with a 100% open mind then forms a decision based on what he finds. It really is a good series, extremely interesting to those who like to beleive in the unbelievable. Here’s a link to the episode on Bigfoot.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqjf4kdprWs

[JD848]

I smelled something about 20 years ago when walking some timber that made me stop on a dime,i stood there and there was this black bear which about was 20 feet from me and did he stink.

I did a circle and around him and walked right up on dead rotten carcuss of a moose he drug up from a river.The moose fell through the river on the ice and snow and ice covered it then came spring and bears nose picked up the smell.

Brown bears and black bears or grizz can really stink so the smell I can see why they say they stink over mistaken identity of what they thought they seen.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Sorry, said that wrong. 100 * 100 km. 100 km squared. It would be 1.6 cats on the low end to nearly 2.5 million acres.

Vietnam has 3 times the people Canada does, and is also 1/30 the size, so you're looking at 90 times the population density.

So if that deer escaped notice with 90 times the chance of being seen, by area, what are the chances that something warier with a very low population density can escape being caught?

How many trail cams per capita in Vietnam?

How many atv/utv/Argo/nodwell/bombi per capita in Vietnam?

How much gas/oil exploration goes on in Vietnam?

How much land is broke in Vietnam?

How much land is dense jungle in Vietnam?

It’s 2 totally different countries, like totally. But you have to also remember that most reports of Bigfoot most likely come out of the United States where there is 325million people with a whole lot more technology. Plus that antelope is like 14” tall and probably weighs about 10lbs.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

How many trail cams per capita in Vietnam?

How many atv/utv/Argo/nodwell/bombi per capita in Vietnam?

How much gas/oil exploration goes on in Vietnam?

How much land is broke in Vietnam?

How much land is dense jungle in Vietnam?

It’s 2 totally different countries, like totally. But you have to also remember that most reports of Bigfoot most likely come out of the United States where there is 325million people with a whole lot more technology. Plus that antelope is like 14” tall and probably weighs about 10lbs.

You seem unwilling to admit that the Leopards are 100 times less populous than you thought. The Saola is about 10 times as big as you think. Rather I think that you are deliberately trying to diminish it, for some strange reason. Because people don't smell them every time they go in the bush? See lots of bears, but I sure don't smell them every time.

We have parks that are practically as big as Vietnam, and places that nobody gets to. It's not all lease roads. These things have been reported in the Himalayas as well.

Pretty widely believed that Gigantopithecus roamed America at one time. Could there be a few living ones?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

You seem unwilling to admit that the Leopards are 100 times less populous than you thought. The Saola is about 10 times as big as you think. Rather I think that you are deliberately trying to diminish it, for some strange reason. Because people don't smell them every time they go in the bush? See lots of bears, but I sure don't smell them every time.

We have parks that are practically as big as Vietnam, and places that nobody gets to. It's not all lease roads. These things have been reported in the Himalayas as well.

Pretty widely believed that Gigantopithecus roamed America at one time. Could there be a few living ones?

The fact that the snow leopards are 100x more rare than I thought only helps back up my argument because there is PROOF of their existence.

If they do exist and they are that smelly then it would be EXTREMELY easy for a dog to track them, like really easy.

Name a place in Canada that nobody has got to as of yet.

Gigantopithecus Roamed the earth 100,000 years ago, am I to believe we have wooly mammoths too?

Show me some proof!!! Anything!!! I’m talking about proof not wishes, because so far all you’ve done is help back up my argument.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by YYC338

I'm sorry, but that ain't how the science works. There is never an onus on the scientific world to disprove the existence of a species or creature. That assumption takes the big leap that the creature does exist with absolutely zero scientific proof and then shifts the responsibility to disprove. Huge flaws in that thought process.

Using that same thought process I guess we can say Ogopogo, unicorns and leprechauns all must exist because.......wait for it........ no one has definitively proven they don't. See the folly in that approach?

As long as these perverted thought processes are brought up in the argument of existence or not, they will continue to reduce the validity of the "believers" position, not advance it.

You're right about one thing though, the creature is VERY rare and does exist in small numbers. It's just that the number is less than one until it's proven otherwise.

Didn't say that's the way "science works". There is no way to disprove with 100% certainty, so why stoop to attempting to ridicule?

There is no proof of them yet. But poor evidence or untrustworthy witnesses do not invalidate better evidence.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The fact that the snow leopards are 100x more rare than I thought only helps back up my argument because there is PROOF of their existence.

If they do exist and they are that smelly then it would be EXTREMELY easy for a dog to track them, like really easy.

Name a place in Canada that nobody has got to as of yet.

Gigantopithecus Roamed the earth 100,000 years ago, am I to believe we have wooly mammoths too?

Show me some proof!!! Anything!!! I’m talking about proof not wishes, because so far all you’ve done is help back up my argument.

No, your argument hinged on population density, you specifically made a point of informing me and I quote:

You should learn about the population density of a species required to perpetuate existence.

So I proved to you that some species don't need very much population density, now you are backpedaling.

Sure it would be really easy to "like really easy" to track them. Just let your dog out the back door, and I'm sure he'd come back with one in his mouth, right? Is that how they find all the new species, that they didn't find before? They just turn Fido out with the instructions: "Find new species, Fido! Go boy!"?

You asked for evidence that something existed that could be Sasquatch. Again I quote:

Bigfoot has supposedly been spotted all across America, not just in the Wilmore, as far as I knew the US has a fairly high population! We find skeletal remains of T-Rex but so far none from a Sasquatch?

And again you back pedal. Now it's not good enough. Now you need a fresh carcass I suppose.

I said that there are plenty of places that people don't get too. You're trying to twist my words, and argument to some impossibly ridiculous standard. Your words again, alluded that there are so many people out there, that someone would have got it. And again you backpedaled, because I showed you an animal that's a small deer (which you tried saying weighed 10 pounds) that existed right under the noses of a country that's 100 times as crowded as ours.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

No, your argument hinged on population density, you specifically made a point of informing me and I quote: So I proved to you that some species don't need very much population density, now you are backpedaling.

Sure it would be really easy to "like really easy" to track them. Just let your dog out the back door, and I'm sure he'd come back with one in his mouth, right? Is that how they find all the new species, that they didn't find before? They just turn Fido out with the instructions: "Find new species, Fido! Go boy!"?

You asked for evidence that something existed that could be Sasquatch. Again I quote: And again you back pedal. Now it's not good enough. Now you need a fresh carcass I suppose.

I said that there are plenty of places that people don't get too. You're trying to twist my words, and argument to some impossibly ridiculous standard. Your words again, alluded that there are so many people out there, that someone would have got it. And again you backpedaled, because I showed you an animal that's a small deer (which you tried saying weighed 10 pounds) that existed right under the noses of a country that's 100 times as crowded as ours.

Absolutely not, my argument hinges on proof, something you haven’t given, which isn’t surprising since nobody has been able to come up with so far. Nobody. Ever. I was entertaining the snow leopard stats just to be polite, there’s a big difference between the population of real creatures and mythical ones.

And are you being serious about tracking dogs? Now who’s being rediculous??? I wouldn’t go after a supposed Bigfoot with a labradoodle, but I guarantee that any hound dog would have no problem tracking a bear.

I asked for evidence of a Sasquatch, not something that could possibly be a kind of sorta Sasquatch, so stop lying about any backpedaling, it sounds a lot like you’re the one trying to backpedal out of coming up with some proof. Your wishes isn’t enough proof for me, and I’m asking for proof of a Sasquatch not a sort of Sasquatch.


Fossils of a Gigantopithecus found in the Himalayas that are 100,000 years old don’t count.

[YYC338]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

There is no proof of them yet. But poor evidence or untrustworthy witnesses do not invalidate better evidence.

And that "better evidence" would be what exactly???

DNA evidence? A specimen? Perhaps just "better" eye witnesses which doesn't make the cut in the scientific world.

Please do provide us with some of this "better" evidence. You do know that "better" is just a relative term and doesn't imply validity or legitimacy.

But don't hesitate to bring forward the better stuff, even detail the best evidence and show us where it has withstood scientific scrutiny.

You use the word yet as if to imply that proof is coming. Any idea when? The myth has been around for hundreds of years and no proof yet.

We've been told on this forum there is unknown primate DNA evidence that has been found in NA, but when asked to provide a link or the evidence of that so far it's been crickets and nothing else.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Absolutely not, my argument hinges on proof, something you haven’t given, which isn’t surprising since nobody has been able to come up with so far. Nobody. Ever. I was entertaining the snow leopard stats just to be polite, there’s a big difference between the population of real creatures and mythical ones.

And are you being serious about tracking dogs? Now who’s being rediculous??? I wouldn’t go after a supposed Bigfoot with a labradoodle, but I guarantee that any hound dog would have no problem tracking a bear.

I asked for evidence of a Sasquatch, not something that could possibly be a kind of sorta Sasquatch, so stop lying about any backpedaling, it sounds a lot like you’re the one trying to backpedal out of coming up with some proof. Your wishes isn’t enough proof for me, and I’m asking for proof of a Sasquatch not a sort of Sasquatch.


Fossils of a Gigantopithecus found in the Himalayas that are 100,000 years old don’t count.

Lying about backpedaling! Lol! Just calling it what it is! Who thinks Kurt backpedaled?

You "entertained" Snow Leopards because you are misinformed. You keep on moving the goal posts because all your points have been proven invalid.

If there was proof there would be no debate, would there? Just you raising the bar again, when all we were talking about was evidence. You have to have a grasp of what I'm saying before we can have a real discussion on it, but you and your brother just seem bent on ridicule. And ridicule isn't polite as you seem to think.

Of course I'm not being serious about dogs. How could you be? You throw out some silly statement, about tracking something that you don't even know exists. First you have to cut a track, it has to be reasonably fresh, and then you'd have to have your dog(s) ready to go in the back of the truck. Why not a Labradoodle? Poodles and Labs are both water dogs used for retrieving. But there is no reason that they can't track, though not as well as a Bloodhound.

As you said, you asked for evidence that a Sasquatch could exist, and I gave you evidence. Be honest, and admit at least that an animal that might fit the bill walked the Earth.

It's not proof, and it might not even be probable, but you have to admit that there could be something. I'm not invested in proving anything, but at least I'm inclined to listen to both sides of the argument.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

As you said, you asked for evidence that a Sasquatch could exist, and I gave you evidence. Be honest, and admit at least that an animal that might fit the bill walked the Earth.

It's not proof, and it might not even be probable, but you have to admit that there could be something. I'm not invested in proving anything, but at least I'm inclined to listen to both sides of the argument.

I’m flat out calling you a liar. What evidence have you given? NONE. Goal posts haven’t moved, you just haven’t been able to come up with any evidence so you’re hoping hearsay will suffice.

Well it doesn’t.

Who thinks I’m backpedaling? How bout who thinks you’re grasping at straws hoping wishes will work as evidence? You’ve come up with theories..... whoopy! Unfortunately theories are no substitute for real evidence.

Joe Rogan explains your type of evidence best here (caution language)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZhTHpFEis

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by YYC338

And that "better evidence" would be what exactly???

DNA evidence? A specimen? Perhaps just "better" eye witnesses which doesn't make the cut in the scientific world.

Please do provide us with some of this "better" evidence. You do know that "better" is just a relative term and doesn't imply validity or legitimacy.

But don't hesitate to bring forward the better stuff, even detail the best evidence and show us where it has withstood scientific scrutiny.

You use the word yet as if to imply that proof is coming. Any idea when? The myth has been around for hundreds of years and no proof yet.

We've been told on this forum there is unknown primate DNA evidence that has been found in NA, but when asked to provide a link or the evidence of that so far it's been crickets and nothing else.

Credible witnesses, and some convincing looking tracks. There is some unidentified/unknown primate DNA from hair. Stories from entire tribes of people handed down as factual. You'd accept less evidence that Trump is guilty of something, so why not this?

New primate fossil evidence has been found of creatures that might be Sasquatch like.

Here's some DNA evidence of something thought to be a bepedal ape: http://www.theparanomalist.com/scien...tery-ape-hair/

There is Ketchum's DNA testing, but I'm not sure that it is credible.

Just discussion of unexplained things. I'm not sure about it, but some of you wouldn't be convinced of anything, even if it lept into the tree next to yours, and handed you a Jack Link!

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I’m flat out calling you a liar. What evidence have you given? NONE. Goal posts haven’t moved, you just haven’t been able to come up with any evidence so you’re hoping hearsay will suffice.

Well it doesn’t.

Who thinks I’m backpedaling? How bout who thinks you’re grasping at straws hoping wishes will work as evidence? You’ve come up with theories..... whoopy! Unfortunately theories are no substitute for real evidence.

Joe Rogan explains your type of evidence best here (caution language)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZhTHpFEis

You have a poor misunderstanding of what a liar is. And very poor manners.

I quoted your exact statements, and you change your tune, lying about what you said, and have the nerve to accuse me of it.

Joe Rogan's alright, but he does a heck of a lot of drugs.

[Tactical Lever]

Joe Rogan is no scientist, or credible authority on much. He might be sharp, and a good conversationalist; but you have problems if you're going to take everything he says as gospel.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Joe Rogan is no scientist, or credible authority on much. He might be sharp, and a good conversationalist; but you have problems if you're going to take everything he says as gospel.

No, he’s not a scientist but his logic is hard to argue with, and he seems to be very informed on something before he passes judgement and he keeps an open mind until most options have been ruled on.

[YYC338]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Credible witnesses, and some convincing looking tracks. There is some unidentified/unknown primate DNA from hair. Stories from entire tribes of people handed down as factual. You'd accept less evidence that Trump is guilty of something, so why not this?



New primate fossil evidence has been found of creatures that might be Sasquatch like.

Here's some DNA evidence of something thought to be a bepedal ape: http://www.theparanomalist.com/scien...tery-ape-hair/

There is Ketchum's DNA testing, but I'm not sure that it is credible.

Just discussion of unexplained things. I'm not sure about it, but some of you wouldn't be convinced of anything, even if it lept into the tree next to yours, and handed you a Jack Link!

Credible by whose standards, the believers? Why are the tracks "convincing" because you know a true Bigfoot track when you see one. Perhaps you're just easily convinced.... read gullible.

"handed down as factual". Really? Factual you say do tell how you know its factual.

"You'd accept less evidence that Trump is guilty of something, so why not this?" Don't presume to know what I'd accept as evidence, you really have no clue, just like when you speak on this topic. I do know what I refuse to accept, the crap you're putting out and calling it "factual"

Seriously, this link is what you came up with? It's 9 years old and they say it could be an orangutan. You did read it before you linked it didn't you? Soooo..it's now nine years later, what was the final determination....let me guess.

Sweet, when you've got nothin, which you've indicated time and again you use humor to defect from your massive short comings in your "evidence"

Did you participate in this thread to argue and beech or to add something constructive and provide proof? Because if it's the latter you've failed miserably. Maybe add some more emojis next message, their the highest form of response you've come up with so far.

[YYC338]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Joe Rogan's alright, but he does a heck of a lot of drugs.

Do you have proof of this? You seem to have a deep knowledge of the situation because you used the term "a heck of a lot".

Or perhaps you say this with no proof and just pull it out of your arse just like everything else that you've come up with.

You should really mind your manners and not slander people in a public forum.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by YYC338

By the way, how exactly do you prove something doesn't exist? Care to share the scientific process and procedure for that?

Because if it involves making that determination due to a complete lack of credible, compelling and documented evidence including, but not limited to DNA or even a specimen. Then I think we can safely say it's been proven that they don't exist.

All the "religions" on Earth want us to believe in something we can't see..many Wars have been fought on imaginary beliefs..even to this day

[YYC338]

Hey TL, I've added another link to the website you provided.

http://www.theparanomalist.com/do-fairy-horses-exist/

Apparently fairy horses exist too. Who knew? Perhaps baby Bigfoot's ride them?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, he’s not a scientist but his logic is hard to argue with, and he seems to be very informed on something before he passes judgement and he keeps an open mind until most options have been ruled on.

Just watched it, and that was kind of a sad performance. I think both of them were HAF. That and Joe's obvious inexperience with the natural world, and his half assed truth finding quest really brought it down. Both of them seriously never saw bears walk and stand on their hind legs... And Joe seemed to think that people still catch bears with leg holds, or they get caught by wolf traps(!), and just walk bipedal everywhere. I like Joe, but that was dumb. That would be a little insulting to some people that actually know what they saw wasn't a bear.

So he believed, consorted with some yahoos (not of the BF) type and then got convinced by them, that he was wrong. Then he totally contradicts himself by saying that they were absolutely 100% real, at one time. And that based on the same theory that many are operating on. Wow..Joe..

[elkhunter11]

I am wondering if our former Alberta Health minister was in the area at the time?