Jump to content

Debunk The Debunking


Recommended Posts

southernyahoo
southernyahoo: I'm not buying either the gymnastic bigfoot[1], or the slide-rule bigfoot[2]. Both amount to nothing more than special pleading.

RayG

For the sake of future brevity:

[1] gymnastic bigfoot = instincts honed from birth by the harsh realities of survival in the wild, allowing them to develop a better sense of kinesthesia so they may leap out of the way of oncoming traffic

[2] slide-rule bigfoot = smart enough to realize that anything the size of a car carries more mass and kinetic energy than their lessor static bodies can withstand in an impact

Bigfoot would be a wild primate, so the likelihood of it having physical prowess is not out of the question at all, and I'm not suggesting bigfoot can do math just that they can make observations and remember that large objects X moving fast + impact = splat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But by all means, continue to stick you fingers in your ears and hum REALLY loudly when someone brings facts to your notice...it's the only way you can keep trotting out the same tired, rebutted and debunked non-objections over and over and over again.

Wow. That would make a great sig line for you, Mulder.

OK, for those reading the thread who might be interested in learning more about why the lack of bigfoot in the fossil (and near fossil) record is problematic, I share the following:

The fossil record is incomplete. This is something one learns in the first lecture of their evolution class. The record is incomplete because only a tiny, tiny fraction of all individuals that have ever lived on earth have been preserved as fossils. What's more, only a tiny fraction of those fossils have ever been found and scientifically described by humans.

Yet poor as that record is, it presents a rich and varied snapshot of life on earth in ages past. The world's museums are filled with items from that incomplete fossil record. What do folks think those paleontologists are doing all day? Generations of scientists since at least the early 19th Century have been studying and cataloging fossils in our museums and universities, and publishing papers on their findings. To learn a bit more about just how many people are involved in studying fossils check out the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The Paleontological Society.

Because of this trenchant notion that the fossil record is "incomplete," many people make the mistaken assumption that it is a useless source of data from which to learn anything about bigfoot (or other natural history topics). People offer as arguments against the existence of bigfoot in the North American fossil record that bigfoot occupies habitats that aren't conducive to fossilization, that bigfoots are rare, and that, perhaps, bigfoots bury their dead. I will now illustrate that these are weak arguments.

1) Bigfoot lives in habitats that don't produce fossils. Bullcrap. Here's a bigfoot sightings map. Now compare it to a map of fossil locations in the Lower 48:

fmdist.gif

This book is a recent (2003) compilation of Quarternary mammals from North America, and it includes maps of fossil sites in Alaska and Canada.

Clearly, bigfoot occurs/occurred in varied habitats. It is simply not true that bigfoot only occurs in coastal rainforests of the Pacific Northwest where acidic soils present poor conditions for fossilization. This is self-evident if you assume that bigfoots dispersed to the Nearctic from their point of origin in the Palearctic. They would have to have existed for generations in boreal forest, steppe, and tundra environments before settling into their current distribution. If bigfoot is real, then for thousands of years bigfoots lived in environments that were quite conducive to producing fossilized remains, and they still do. Plus, for all you "no fossils from the coastal rainforest" fans out there, you'll note from the maps I've provided and linked that there are numerous fossil sites represented from those habitats in that region. Poor habitat for fossilization = fail.

2) Bigfoot is too rare to reasonably expect humans to have found its fossils. Okay, let's assume for the moment that bigfoot has always been "rare." First I might ask, how rare? It's hard to be both really rare and distributed broadly across at least two continents. If bigfoot is so rare, then how did it come to occupy nearly the whole of the North American continent in, presumably, just a few thousand years after its arrival from the Palearctic? Why do native peoples from all over North (and South) America have stories of such creatures in their cultures? If those stories are based on firsthand encounters, then bigfoots must have been very widespread in distribution. So I'm not convinced that a real bigfoot would be as rare as many folks like to believe.

But let's say bigfoot is rare, and assume that it's as rare as our other examples of mammals that occur at very low population densities. These are the top carnivores that have to be sparsely distributed through their range according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words, top carnivores need to eat stuff that, in turn, needs to travel over broad areas to obtain its sustenance. Therefore, it takes a much bigger area to support 50 kg of carnivore than it does 50 kg of herbivore. The question then becomes, do we have evidence from the fossil record of top carnivores? We sure do. Bears, big cats, wolverines - these are relevant to a discussion of the likelihood of finding bigfoot fossils because they occur at very low population densities. Even the smaller carnivores like wolverines and lynx - these are well known from the fossil record, but bigfoot? (Crickets.) Bigfoot too rare to leave behind fossils for us to find = fail.

3) Not every discussion of the lack of bigfoot in the fossil record revolves around behavioral practices of bigfoots that would keep us from finding their remains, but folks do still occasionally mention "burying their dead" as one explanation. I can think of no better way to make a fossil than to bury a body in an earthen grave soon after death, so this one is a fail too. If you don't want your deceased relatives to fossilize, it might be best to scatter their remains and stick them up in trees. Burying wouldn't work.

Finally, it's important to point out a few things that make the lack of bigfoot remains even more problematic:

*Bigfoots are supposedly still with us. They've had an additional 10,000–20,000 years to leave behind remains (fossil or otherwise) compared to remains of other creatures that have long since gone extinct, say short-faced bears.

*Bigfoots are unknown from the Palearctic fossil record too. Those Chinese and Russian paleontologists are pretty good at finding fossils too, yet there's no evidence from their work that anything bigfooty dispersed across eastern Asia before further dispersing across Beringia into the Nearctic.

So, as I've written many times, the lack of bigfoot from the fossil (and recent) record does not prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, but it is certainly problematic. For me personally, it's compelling enough to be a primary reason contributing to my general skepticism that there is a biological bigfoot behind the cultural one. It would be refreshing to have proponents to whom I've pointed out these problems on multiple occasions simply acknowledge, "yes, this is a problem" and move on. I do likewise with facets of the bigfoot phenomenon for which I have no good explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making it sound like bigfoot is the Yoda of the animal world.

If one completely and utterly missed my point, or didn't read my post, then I suppose it could be translated that way.

You're making it sound like avoiding a car in the woods takes a "yoda of the animal world"

You're stuck on the "animal" thing, which was the entire point of my first post.

Are YOU the yoda of the animal world? Would YOU need jedi ninja powers to avoid a car in the woods?

No? Then why does squatch? Because they're just dumb animals? You're an animal...right?

Squatch, if they are there, are animals in the sense that WE are, and likely Homo "something".

I find the assumption that Squatch is just an animal (in the bear, wolverine sense) a nonsensical, not to mention arbitrary notion.

It really doesn't fit with volume of encounters, nor the reality we seem to facing in documenting them.

I think some place it in the animal category by default for religious/world view reasons, just as some

refute the entire notion in a knee jerk way for world view reasons. In any case, making the assumption

that squatch is the same intelligence category as a bear is nothing but a knee jerk assumption, and again

doesn't really jive with what's going on out there.

Again, it's either not there, or it doesn't find avoiding cars any more difficult that you or I do..and

without special powers to boot!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some dogs do not have reactions, I have noticed some feel that dogs with significant percentages of wolf genetics have less reactions or nil, on the other hand I know of sled dogs(with wolf genetics) reacting in a terrified manner to vocalizations.. and they were bear aggressive.. same with people who spend their lifetimes with guard dog breeds (notably dobs and gsheps who report experiences watching their normally aggressive dogs whither in the presence of what is thought to be a sasquatch or their audio. Over time some of these dogs seem to have lost their fear however which suggests some other things.

Reactions to audio cues is another matter entirely. I find the ongoing research into the implications of infrasound and it's effects on a listener to be interesting in that regard.

You're making it sound like bigfoot is the Yoda of the animal world.

southernyahoo: I'm not buying either the gymnastic bigfoot[1], or the slide-rule bigfoot[2]. Both amount to nothing more than special pleading.

For the sake of future brevity:

[1] gymnastic bigfoot = instincts honed from birth by the harsh realities of survival in the wild, allowing them to develop a better sense of kinesthesia so they may leap out of the way of oncoming traffic

[2] slide-rule bigfoot = smart enough to realize that anything the size of a car carries more mass and kinetic energy than their lessor static bodies can withstand in an impact

Since no one is making that claim, your so-called objection is nothing but straw man.

1) Once again, it is a matter of educating oneself: BF HAVE been reported being hit by cars. We just haven't "gotten lucky" on finding a potential result.

2) Intellect and/or agility make it far less likely that someone will have either a fatal or non-fatal accident according to the degree of either or both any individual creature possesses. Even a modicum of intellect would vastly reduce the already remote chance of a bf even being hit, let alone killed by a car, and "muscle memory" (reflexes 'trained' by experience natural or artificial) can make all the difference in the world between avoiding a serious injury and suffering one. I know this from personal experiece, and I'm sure Jodie as someone who has an intimate knowledge of kinsthetics (sp?) would agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, as I've written many times, the lack of bigfoot from the fossil (and recent) record does not prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, but it is certainly problematic. For me personally, it's compelling enough to be a primary reason contributing to my general skepticism that there is a biological bigfoot behind the cultural one. It would be refreshing to have proponents to whom I've pointed out these problems on multiple occasions simply acknowledge, "yes, this is a problem" and move on. I do likewise with facets of the bigfoot phenomenon for which I have no good explanation.

A thought out and sensible post.

I'd submit that the hundreds and hundreds of sightings, coupled with casts (which I've seen and held a few of) make the fossil

question less problematic for the moment. Food for thought though.

It takes a rare sequence of events for anything to get fossilized for starters, as you well know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 11 December 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

There are a few other (and should be ) obvious explanations:

1) They are exceedingly rare

Yet supposedly there have been thousands of reported sightings/interactions/encounters.

1) Actually, BFRO records just 6,000 or so reports ranging back 200 years

2) See Glickman's report density theory

2) Their exposure to roads is extremely limited

Yet bf is frequently seen on or near highways.

No, they are not. They are rarely seen at all.

3) A combination of the above............

But isn't their rarity and limited exposure to roads undermined by these thousands of encounters, a great many of them occurring on or near roads?

1) No, they are not, because there are not "thousands" of reports on or near roads.

2) In order for there to be a report, there must be a human to report it

3) On or near roads is where most humans can be found

4) Therefore, it should not be surprising to find reports often near roads

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that sightings frequently occur on or near roads, not that bigfoot spends the majority of their time there.

John Green's early data seemed to support that. For example, in his Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, (pages 454-455), he writes:

"Including both sightings and tracks, by far the greatest number were reported on roads --37 on major highways and 245 on lesser roads including dirt roads".

Ray, the little country road that I live off of boasts nearly 8,000 vehicles a day.

Imagine the amount of vehicles per day on all PNW roads alone? For decades?

And you're discussing 282 sightings as if that's not an illustration of rare?

C'mon, Ray. This doesn't even rise to elementary statistics. Are skeptics really that desperate or thoughtless?

My argument is that if this is some rare, highly intelligent, reclusive, super-ninja-ape-like-creature, sightings on or near roads should be nearly non-existent, especially at night, when they can use their heightened senses to avoid human contact.

It is precisely because they are rare that there are so few sightings, and at night is not only when one would most expect to see such a creature, but almost all other creatures, including deer, bear, bats, lions, fox, etc.

You should know this, Ray.

Edited by Huntster
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Found this 2008 Wildlife Roadkill Identification Guide, produced by the Ministry of Transportation in Victoria, BC. Animals included in it are the following:

Badger, Black Bear, Grizzly Bear, Bison, Caribou, Cougar, Coyote, Deer (Mule, Black-tailed, & White-tailed), Elk (Roosevelt & Rocky Mountain, Moose (Alaskan, Northwestern, & Shiras), Porcupine, Sheep (Bighorn), and Wolf.

No bigfoot.

I don't see alligators listed.

Do alligators exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
In Alaska alone there are over 800 moose killed each year by vehicles and trains. One could argue that being bigger just makes you a larger target.

And that argument would be false. For example:

There are as many total bears (black, brown, and polar) in Alaska than there are moose (about 200,000).

Tell us how many road/train killed bears there are annually in Alaska, Ray. 800? Close?

There are more wolverines in Alaska than anywhere else, too. How many roadkilled wolverines in Alaska? In 35 years, I've heard of exactly.............0. (and I ran over one once with a railcar............it just ran away).

Edited by Huntster
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making it sound like bigfoot is the Yoda of the animal world.

Yes.

Sasquatch (if it exists) is obviously more adept at almost everything than the rest of the animal kingdom (kinda like humans). Otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo
But let's say bigfoot is rare, and assume that it's as rare as our other examples of mammals that occur at very low population densities. These are the top carnivores that have to be sparsely distributed through their range according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words, top carnivores need to eat stuff that, in turn, needs to travel over broad areas to obtain its sustenance. Therefore, it takes a much bigger area to support 50 kg of carnivore than it does 50 kg of herbivore. The question then becomes, do we have evidence from the fossil record of top carnivores? We sure do. Bears, big cats, wolverines - these are relevant to a discussion of the likelihood of finding bigfoot fossils because they occur at very low population densities. Even the smaller carnivores like wolverines and lynx - these are well known from the fossil record, but bigfoot? (Crickets.) Bigfoot too rare to leave behind fossils for us to find = fail.

How does the second law of thermodynamics work with an omnivore? How many coyotes would a BF have to displace to find his sustenance? I also find it problematic to on one hand assert that the fossil record is rich and varied and on the other acknowledge that the record represents a very small percentage of all life that have lived on the earth and that certain conditions must be present despite the location and meanwhile dismissing that we have found nonhuman hominid bones in the fossil record but which we prefer to assume those species extinct while sightings persist of nonhuman hominids to this day. Giant human Bones have been found as well but thats not good enough to establish their hirsutedness and that they roamed the forests without the use of the usual human artifacts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

We don't have any Bigfoot fossils that we can examine. That doesn't mean that none have been found. There are reports that would suggest that larger than normal hominid bones have been found. If they were, they have been misplaced or discarded.

If you want to mount an expedition to find Bigfoot, I'd start with the museum and University storage rooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

When did it become known fact that all bigfoots hate all canines, & that all canines are afraid of bigfoot? That is complete nonsense. There is no doubt that some or even most canines are afraid of them, & that they have been known to kill dogs, coyotes, etc. But isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that it is always the case, all the time?

Some of them have dogs & coyotes for pets here. I have seen them together with my own eyes. The bigfoot showed no hate, & the canines showed no fear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...