masterbarber

Has Bigfoot Science Stalled? (2)

49 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

 None in North America?    How do you know what fossil or bones for that matter have yet to be found?     You surely know how rare fossils are to begin with?        I would think you would throttle back on the absolutes because that has gotten science in trouble throughout it's history.   Science has declared the earth the center of the universe,   the sky a fixed dome above us,   bleeding a cure for many diseases, and the list of how science was wrong goes on and on.   More recently much of what I was taught in college was wrong and has been corrected many times since.    With science, the only thing that has proven more likely than not is that what is accepted now will be discredited in the future.    One of my degree requirements was to take a history of science class.       I think the primary reason for the course at that time was to instill a proper sense of history and responsibility for a scientist to not accept scientific dogma.      I see a lot of officially sanctioned dogma out there.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course every conclusion is open to amendment should new evidence discount current thinking. That is always the way. Almost every conclusion is somewhat provisionary. Too often that objective approach is abused by those who want their unproven ideas to appear as credible as any other idea. Often these are ideas lacking in sufficient supporting evidence.  

 

I am not going to attach a "provisionally speaking" to every statement I make. You will just have to assume this to be the case. 

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, we can find fossils of a racoon sized animal from 5 million years ago, but nothing for an allegedly extant 8ft ape that is reported in every continental state? This would be great news to support those thousands of red panda sightings across North America if there were any such reports. 

 

 

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many fossils of Gigantopethicus do we have? Not many, some teeth and parts of the jaw bone. How many fossils of Denisovians do we have? A single finger bone. These are not red panda sized primates......

 

And very very recent finds of new species of hominids such as the hobbit, gives us hope there is much more to be discovered.

 

While inconclusive we even have possible butchered mastodon bones in California that are 120,000 years old.....much much older than the land bridge hypothesis. And if true they were probably NOT made by Homo Sapiens but an older branch of human that had radiated out of Africa much earlier. Pretty cool bomb dropping stuff. Hopefully it can be better verified in the future with more evidence. How many scientists have even been digging for human habitation in the Americas at the 120,000 year level?

 

Im just as frustrated as any scientist about the lack of physical evidence. But I guess until you see compelling trace evidence and a tingle goes up your spine and you start looking at your surroundings a bit side ways? None of this matters....it's just a myth.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The lack of a fossil record that could support a modern day bigfoot is only one nail in the coffin. I am more interested in the lack of contemporary remains for something as large and as far ranging as bigfoot is reported to be. Overall, the lack of a fossil record is only a small piece in the puzzle. If something like bigfoot existed the way it is reported, then we would expect to have a long list of physical evidence available. We have none. 

Edited by dmaker
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching what you've said for some time now.   The only way any piece of evidence would meet your criteria of "evidence" is if it were already backed by proof of existence.    There's a catch-22, huh?    We'll never have proof without building on evidence but you won't accept evidence unless there's already proof.

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

 How do you know what fossil or bones for that matter have yet to be found?

 

Come now.

 

I've a dragon in my garage.

 

Edit to add:

 

http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

 

The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

Edited by Incorrigible1
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmaker said:

The lack of a fossil record that could support a modern day bigfoot is only one nail in the coffin. I am more interested in the lack of contemporary remains for something as large and as far ranging as bigfoot is reported to be. Overall, the lack of a fossil record is only a small piece in the puzzle. If something like bigfoot existed the way it is reported, then we would expect to have a long list of physical evidence available. We have none. 

 

I 100% agree that if it was as numerous and widespread as reported by the BFRO? We would have our evidence. But what if it's not? What if it's hanging on by a nail in the PACNW?

 

But you were asking why we should assume that a ancient hominid may have crossed the land bridge?

 

"But why would we? We have none in North America"

 

I think our understanding of the Primate fossil record is just getting started. If the hobbit is now a cousin of Habilis? How long have two legged Hominids been marching out of Africa? How many finger bones are out there waiting to be discovered? If we made it here 12000 years ago? What else did?

 

No physical evidence but I'll chose to keep an open mind on the subject. If not Bigfoot? Some other cryptid Primate. I have a lot of faith in our family :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I hear you on the fossil record and the steady stream of new discoveries. But I don't see the connection to an extant giant ape running amok in North America. The fossil record would be just the tiny beginning of the physical evidence available if such a thing existed. That we find fossils for extinct (an extinction largely unchallenged being the salient point) species is interesting, but does nothing really to bolster the bigfoot case. In my opinion, anyway.

 

How do you account for the reports that are, in your opinion, out of balance? Obviously you feel some of the reports are not genuine. Is that due to error or deliberate fabrication, do you think?

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's due to Bigfoot hysteria being beamed into everyone's houses including Europe.

 

http://cryptozoologynews.com/man-convinced-he-has-proof-of-bigfoot-in-switzerland/

 

I also think that our ancestors lived in a world in which other species of competing Hominids were a constant threat. So our brains are hard wired to watch out for the boogie man, even though many of us live in urban areas today. No different than why our North American Pronghorn run so fast..... it's there to out run an extinct species of North American cheetah.

 

But if a Gigantopethicus fossil was found in North America? It would completely rewrite what science thought it knew about the new world. And it would not harm Bigfoots case of being a real creature either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MIB said:

I've been watching what you've said for some time now.   The only way any piece of evidence would meet your criteria of "evidence" is if it were already backed by proof of existence.    There's a catch-22, huh?    We'll never have proof without building on evidence but you won't accept evidence unless there's already proof.

 

MIB

Not at all. All bigfoot evidence has simple alternate sources. There is a high degree of ambiguity. Not a single piece of bigfoot evidence cannot be explained by a more mundane source. Be that fabrication or error. That is the problem with bigfoot evidence. That and the fact that most of it is not falsifiable in the first place. 

 

Read the dragon in my garage article. It lays this concept out perfectly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree. Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" is a rebuttal to religion and not cryptozoology.

 

And while there is a minority fringe in this subject that treats Bigfoot as more of a spirit, because it shape shifts or is telepathic, etc? Most of us are looking for a living breathing animal. And yes there are creatures that fit the description of Bigfoot or Yowie or Orang Pendak in the fossil record. They the fossils were real.... So the question becomes are they still around? And if so where? And if they are real now? We need physical proof to prove that they do in fact STILL exist.

 

Its a very different subject than dealing with something that has never been known to exist in any form in the history of the Earth.

 

Fire breathing dragons, winged pixies, the moth man, etc, have no representation in the fossil record ever, anywhere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you are so eager to suggest extinct creatures may still be around. Why must the question become "..are they still around"? There is really no decent evidence to support the notion that they are still around, so why do you insist that there is a question at all? I see no real reason to be asking it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant speak for Norseman, only myself.  I' suggest or tend to be a proponent due to the fact that I had an experience in the woods that after some consideration, I lean towards BF being a possible explanation.  I am not 100% confident I was not hoaxed, or misinterpreted the situation as I never laid direct eyes on "it".  It sparked an interest in the topic and now I follow it.  I think there is some compelling story here regarding BF and I'd like to see it play out.  I will not be shocked if its never found but I would be pleasantly surprised and feel somewhat vindicated if it does turn out to be a living, breathing creature.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites