Leaderboard

Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature. The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years. Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes: 1. Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food. 2. Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition. Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations. 3. As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations. 4. Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night. 5. Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc. 6. Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters. They may even have preyed on humans at times. 7. Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival. The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times. 8. As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off. 9. Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe. Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today. Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names. So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict. Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation.

I will continue my backpacking and backcountry camping expeditions with interested friends but most often alone. My objective is personal. I don't have any interest in proving sasquatch to anyone much less the world. I just want to see one before I meet my maker. I've have several eyeshine incidents with one lasting for at least five minutes and moving about trying to avoid my flashlight. I've also seen very interesting footprints. Now, my objective is to see one in the flesh preferably during daylight. Don't get me wrong; I applaud those who have more global ambitions and seek to discover for the world the existence of sasquatch. It's not what animates me at this point in my life. It would be deeply satisfying to be able to sit back, with feet up, and smile knowing I had finally seen one. Nature had been profoundly kind enough to reward me with one of her most-guarded secrets. Frankly, if I had the evidence, the Ark of the Covenant of the BF world, I'd never disclose it. You can't close Pandora's box once opened. Different strokes for different folks.

Key word here is : U.S. Intelligence Agencies ,To what purpose did they have in this in regard to science. Yes, we have lost our skills that we once had as our ancestors di back then. The ability to track game , and hunt it is a skill that is learned by being in the field and learned by observation. We have lost those skills by technology that science has provided for us. In a way science has held us back by it's advances and this is some thing that these creatures have an advantage over us. We have to go back to the way it was back then in order to advance bigfoot science. Bigfoot science can not be at a stand still because of science refusal to listen. This is why a lot of us has spent out of our own pockets to provide science what little proof we can gather about these creatures. It is not fair or just but it is a route that most of us have chosen for science. A lot of have no idea on how to handle the evidence or how the evidence should be handled since there is no proper protocol for it. Again this all starts with a creation of Bigfoot science that was started by the old guard and has been used by most. I can't see this being any kind of impediment to discovery of these potential creatures. We are very luckily enjoying a Zeitgeist of enlightenment of human evolution with all the recent discoveries and finds like the hobbit, lucy, Homo naledi and so forth adding to the picture. This is currently THE PLACE TO BE in science. If this animal exists it no doubt will further advance our knowledge of evolution of bipedal primates, possibly the homo genus, even Medieval superstitions have not retarded our recent revelations, no reason to think this will be the straw that broke the camels back........that broke a long while ago. Now think about this , the discovery of an ancient man living in the present that may very well be a link to our own DNA. Would that not create hysteria amongst the masses, including the scientist. That our science was wrong in what it has taught in schools , religion and every thing else. Is science big enough to admit this to the world . What will the world think about science , even though it has made some great discoveries. Science would have no idea on how to handle this since we have a living species among us. Also what about the 411 books that have been written and all those people that have gone missing . How would this impact on that, knowing that we have people missing in our forest that cannot be explained but now have some thing to blame it on. How will science deal with that impact? Especially all those stories about how these creatures would steal our women and children after discovery. now do you not think that this is an impediment of discovery of these creatures. No, I am betting that science does not want to jump on this train for the reason I have just explained. It makes good sense for science to have stalled where it has. We are not ready yet for discovery yet. But I have seen preparation for it in commercials and in adds and believe that we are being prepared for discovery. Little by little our minds are being prepped with small messages by science, every so often settled hints are being offered. It is just a matter of time before science is prepared to announce it. Science will catch up but our world needs to be prepared.

Well, as we suck at catching one, maybe they are more intelligent than we are? One thing is for sure, they own the forests and they definitely own the night.

Is that what the voices in your head say Sasfooty? Or is that a guess on your part?

To answer the original topic, my plan is to spend as much time camping as I can in the places they seem to frequent. I travel extensively for work and I run my dash cam most of the time in hopes of filming a road crossing. When in Squatchy areas I like to explore. I'll be in Oregon in March. Ditto that... My only goal is to prove it to me. If I get remarkable, shareable evidence then it would be a bonus beyond my goal. For me more pros than cons. I am signed up for my third BFRO outing this spring. Pros: 1: Contacts - you get first hand interaction with actual witnesses who end up as regulars. They can gain a lot of credibility when you get the story face to face. 2: Hanging with BFRO Investigators with good stories and locations to share. I know of places that are not in any public database. 3: The people that go are great people to hang out with. Hopefully others enjoy my company as much as I enjoy theirs. 4: Facing and overcoming fear of the dark while in the creepiest, darkest places with people who are unafraid is very empowering. 5: It's a blast! The great outdoors is my happy place 6: Opportunities for private outings may come up from time to time. 7: My son gets to join me for no additional fees. He has also had remarkable experiences. Cons: 1: It's Expensive for a Camping Trip. It does get considerably cheaper after your first expedition. I think of it as entertainment so the fee doesn't bother me. It's more like relatively cheap entertainment, costing less than a three night stay in most hotels. If hotels are your thing you could still stay in one and still participate in everything. 2: The group of people can be large and I think efforts become ineffective with too many people. We always split into smaller groups and head to different locations which helps. Last year I seemed to pick the wrong group each night but still had a blast and recorded a possible wood knock. 3: No booze 4: No dogs... I understand the reasoning for the rule but as a dog person I believe a good dog could be helpful.

Bodhi, I've watched you consistently dismiss every bit of evidence that has been offered. For example: there is internal consistency within the bigfoot reports, but you have categorically dismissed all reports as unreliable based on nothing more than opinion. This forum has also introduced hair and fecal sample analyses that indicate the samples are from no identified animal, but you turn that around and pose that bigfoot leaves no identifiable evidence. Chicken or the egg here. Did you intentionally omit prints from your post? If so, why? And why would you object to their inclusion as evidence left behind? Krantz and Meldrum have heavily documented such evidence, which is in fact left behind. I wasn't being snarky about man, either. Man is the most appropriate comparison. I was the one who introduced the avoidance of conflict in the post to which you responded. Am I not permitted to carry this theme forward, preserving the integrity of my initial post? You have so maaaany subjective rules. I get lost in all of the obfuscation. Could please produce a compendium of all of your rules that the rest of us can use as a handbook?

Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature. The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years. Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes: 1. Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food. 2. Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition. Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations. 3. As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations. 4. Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night. 5. Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc. 6. Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters. They may even have preyed on humans at times. 7. Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival. The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times. 8. As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off. 9. Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe. Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today. Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names. So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict. Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation. lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition. The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent. There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found. Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science. I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary. So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit? Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature. The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years. Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes: 1. Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food. 2. Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition. Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations. 3. As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations. 4. Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night. 5. Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc. 6. Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters. They may even have preyed on humans at times. 7. Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival. The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times. 8. As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off. 9. Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe. Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today. Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names. So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict. Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation. lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition. The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent. There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found. Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science. I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary. So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit? Dude, you're persistently immune to reason and prone to introduce straw man topics that haven't even been touched upon. First, they do leave behind hair, scat, footprints, etc.. Your saying that they don't doesn't make it so. Second, I didn't mention the poem, Beowulf, or for that matter even think about it while posting, but feel free to go where your fantasy takes you. Third, I am an applied scientist, but am unfamiliar with your science-based background. Fourth, another example of an animal that has the characteristic of using stealth so that it can pilfer food without engaging in direct conflict? I submit that Man fits this description.

I think this^ comes into play as well.

It's good to remember that of the old guard neither - John Green, Rene' Dahinden, Bernard Heuvelmans, Ivan Sanderson, Peter Byrne, John Napier, William Charles Osman-Hill, Boris Porshev, Carleton ****, George Agogino NOR Grover Krantz ever had a sighting of sasquatch or yeti. I can't begin to add up the "man-years" this group collectively invested in the search for the either animal. If anyone's interested in looking into the lives of each man, I think you'll find that the search took a pretty heavy toll on each in it's own way as well. I think the seriousness with which the initial claims were taken is sometimes lost, and the true cost to those who made the effort as well. True, many of the first expeditions (specifically the tom slick sponsored ones) in search of the yeti were compromised by u.s. intelligence agencies and slick did himself little good by leaving scientists behind in the u.s. and england (slick, et. al, made the decisions of where to search and what items to send back to the scientists recruited to the team but left back at "home base"). Still though, these were serious (but doomed) endeavors requiring real hardships and lengthy time frames. When someone states with certainty that science hasn't given a serious look as the sasquatch/yeti it just inidicates to me that either they haven't read much on the subject or that they are being purposely untruthful. (this is not in any way pointed at anyone in this thread and definitely not you L.C.B. - I'm linking to your post simply because your referenced the old guard of sasquatch hunters).

The void we have of real science concerning this creature is what is allowing all this paranormal stuff to enter into the picture, slowly we lose credibility as we allow the field to be taken over by extremes. Where are the Rene Da hindens, the Bob Titmus, the kind of guys whose unswerving passion accomplished more for their day than we have for ours. As I have repeatedly stated, we would do well to learn to track, ride on horseback, and to have dogs trained in pursuing primates, and that is what might level the playing field somewhat. These animals can be tracked, although they might be able to escape through their speed and agility, but stories exist of them being captured in the 1800s, and by men of such skills. We have lost the outdoor skills and horsemanship required. It should not be a surprise that the best single piece of film we have of the creature was taken on horseback, it is something that helps cover up the scent as well as audio signature of humans, I doubt there was any conversation in the minutes leading up to seeing Patty, I think they were just riding along. When we are out in the field they can tell we are human long before we get near them, and they have the upper hand. That needs to be reversed.

This is easy and probably perplexing to skeptics but I don't intend to prove existence of BF in 2016. I am not equipped to do that. Should I find skeletal remains, and I am always searching for that, the best I can do is find someone I trust and turn the bones over to them. That is more difficult than it sounds. I do not know who I can trust. At best I might get a mention in the paper they publish. At worst, they could have the skeleton confiscated at any point by some alphabet agency who is watching them. I think I mentioned in my own thread that have a new interest in tree blow overs and the exposed soil their upended roots display. If you ran around with an excavator, you could not expose as much soil in a forested area because of the living trees and root systems. But when nature exposes soil with dozens of tree blow overs in an area, bank erosion along ash falls and lahars, soil erosion along stream banks, and land slides along cliff faces, nature is doing the work of dozens of pieces of heavy equipment exposing previously hidden soil, and you don't need a permit from anyone dig or to look. The ash fall and pyroclastic flow areas are particularly hopeful. The ash and pyroclastic soil does not contain a lot of organic material that makes it highly acidic like normal forest soil. That organic material has all been burned or cooked out. A BF could have been caught, suffocated, and buried in an eruption, and like Pompeii the preserved body is there to find covered in ash, waiting for natural erosion processes to expose it. These methods may not work at all mid continent but the PNW is pretty much entirely volcanic in origin.

Just going about my daily business which includes a few camping trips throughout the year, most of them being in the northern parts of Michigan's lower Peninsula, at least one should be up in to the UP however. Also a lot of rides up through some pretty forested areas such as Manistee National Forest. If i see one, great, hopefully I'll even be able to capture a photo or video but doubtful. It would have to be the perfect scenario in order for me to get my phone out in time, I never walk around prepared with it.

I had the same problem with the pinecones being thrown as Crow did. The person filming is sitting there pointing his camera past a tree and into the sky. Then stating where the cones are coming from. You can hear them falling all around him as he sits under a fir tree. Then he pans the camera around and low and behold there's a squirrel running by with a cone in its mouth. This is typical squirrel behavior, cut the cones loose, drop them on the ground, then go down and pick them up. This is the usual that needs to be eliminated before we can even begin to proceed to the unusual. If you come across something happening that can't be explained through the usual means then you may be onto something. But remember, coincidence does occur quite often, rocks do roll down hill, things do fall out of trees, and trees do tip over by themselves occasionally for no apparent reason. Until we look and try to figure out the cause it doesn't do us our anyone else any good to go directly to supposition.

Hello MIB, This is a "Has Bigfoot Science Stalled" thread. Woo or what most folks call woo cannot be scientifically tested. So following where the facts lead isn't possible. Facts are called facts once they have been rigorously tested and can be repeatable by any scientist in the lab. Paranormal things, even though experienced by some, do not fall into that category except for those few experiencers. Generally speaking those experiences cannot be tested without a specimen which brings us back to square one- we need the physical specimen. In order to get science on board to get one if we don't first is to keep the "facts" in the physically measurable realm and even that is severely lacking to a point where science to date won't even bother. Need a body, my friend. No one is ruling out the woo as far as I can see but adding it to the equation doesn't help in promoting science's willingness to investigate the subject. Surely you can understand that.

There is no such thing as Bigfoot science. All there is, is the application of proven scientific principles, methods, and techniques for the investigation of an anomaly. The problem is with the anomaly itself; that appears to be weirder than most early BF investigators thought. The multiplicity of strategies that have been attempted to get reliable/uncontested physical evidence have all failed. Failure has not been because of lack of trying, effort, or application of creative ways. The scientific community should not get involved unless good physical evidence is presented (foot-print casts, blurry photos, controversial videos, and anecdotal stories don't have much evidentiary weight). Thus, I don't blame the scientific community for not getting involved nor I blame the BF investigating community for not trying. There is a reason why Bigfoot is part of the Cryptozoology and considered an anomaly - it is a tough nut to crack. If it was easy, then regular good old wildlife biologists and zoologists would have confirmed its existence long ago. It is stuff like this below, that makes it even harder for scientist to even look at the meager evidence, Regardless of whether ShadowBorn's claim is true or false, it makes the field look weirder: If true, the anomaly is weirder and stranger than many think. And, applying standard scientific methods will prove harder to uncover the truth. If false, it shows that the field is contaminated with many bizarre, unsubstantiated stories, that raise doubts about the whole field.

Antiscience creed? I have an anti-science fiction creed when dogma is trying to be passed off as science fact. Being close to 70, I went to college (Earth Science) in the mid 60s. We were told withbsolute certainty the history of mankind. It was mostly fiction and has continuously been revised since. Modern man and its ancestors are much older than previously though. What we were told were missing links were not even in our family trees. New ones have been found. Multiple simultaneous humanoids were living at the same point in time. We not only outlasted the Neanderthals but interbred with them. None of that was known when I went to college and what was being taught was no more than fiction. It was unknown what killed off the dinosaurs. They thought it was some sort of ice age and the reptiles could not handle the cold. A guy down in Arizona was trying to convince his geology colleges that the Crater in Arizona was from a meteor. They all thought he was nuts. Then in 1980 they started to find a layer of a certain mineral, iradium enriched shocked quartz that is created when a meteor impacts the earth right at the K-T boundary. The point in time where the dinosaurs died. For over 20 years oil companies looking for oil in the Gulf of Mexico had known about a huge crater like structure in the gulf floor but science pretty much ignored it. Not interested. Then the pieces started to fall together that had been known and ignored for over 20 years. Shoemaker was still thought of as a nut job. Until a comet was found that seemed to be about to impact Jupiter. Science figured that impact would be like a rock in a pond because Jupiter was so large. 9 fragments hit Jupiter with catastrophic effects, scars were visible on the surface of the gas giant planet, and some impacts were visible blasting debris into space with the force of millions of megatons, when the last fragments hit in view of earth. Shoemaker was suddenly credible. If a ball of ice and rock could do that to Jupiter, a huge rock hitting earth could be catastrophic. Anyway we now are fairly certain an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and that crater in Arizona is called Meteor Crater. And now evidence is stacking up that those dinosaurs were warm blooded, covered with feathers, and not reptiles. And science was just as certain when I went to college they knew the truth about all of that as they are today. They were wrong and much what I was taught was fiction. Funny you mention the horse. Even though they originated in the Americas, they and the camel ended up in Europe and Asia and no were no longer in the Americas until reintroduced by humans. What was fact when I went to college is now fiction and wrong. How much of what we are being told today is hard science, will be thrown out as fiction in the next 50 years? The history of science to date suggests that much of it will be discarded as more is discovered. Nebulous belief about the Smithsonian? Several researchers have tried through the Freedom of Information act to get the Smithsonian to look for giant skeleton bones that were reported by multiple sources in the media at the time (Newspapers) to have been boxed up and shipped there. To date the response to these queries are they have no record of that happening, or they did receive something and it cannot be located. Are we to trust an institution that has such sloppy record keeping? What has been lost may not have been intentional but never the less what could be the finds of the millennium might have been lost. They have even lost stuff collected by Lewis and Clark. Have no idea where it went. They refused display the Wright Flyer for decades because two bicycle mechanics succeeded in doing what their prestigious staff and 100s of thousands of tax payer dollars could not do, fly a heavier than air airplane. They were deeply involved with the Manifest Destiny determination that the Native Amercans were simply hunter gatherers and had not developed a civilization or advance culture. All this in spite of archeological evidence with the Mound Culture in the Mid West which to this day is being suppressed. One director quit in disgust when he realized that the Manifest Destiny was a land grab from the Indians. If you want to cling to an organization in the name of holy science, pick one with a better reputation.

Baldershash? Care to venture a guess at what percentage of the species on this planet that have left a fossil record here or anywhere else? I will not even humor you by giving you the answer. Hint! It is a lot closer to zero than 10% It is like walking into a library, picking out twelve books at random, and creating the entire history of humanity from those twelve books. Mostly guess and conjecture on the part of science.