Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

Excellent, so you have a link to any references that confirms BF has a sagittal crest? Please share.

Isn't Patty supposed to have one?

This is true. If there was a fossil record in NA then it would be considered as additional evidence for arguing they currently exist.

On the other hand, does the absence of a known fossil record automatically disqualify modern day sightings? Please advise.

Not entirely. But it's not a good sign.

[Guest poignant]

The animals and fossils that you mention here, for the most part, evolved in NA or have been present in NA for millions of years. Hence finding them in the fossil record, and extant or closely related species in modern times. This has nothing to do with finding/not-finding fossils of hominids/hominoids in NA. If we found such fossils tomorrow, it wouldn't be proof that they are around today. And not ever finding such fossils is not proof that they are not around today. Non-sequitur.

The only information fossils provide: a record of being present in NA in the past; what they were like in the past; and how they have changed (or not changed) through time (if fossils of different ages were found, or if they are proven to be alive today).

One more thing: you seem to be assuming that all fossils collected have been correctly identified and categorized. And that all the fossils collected have been examined and studied in detail. This is an invalid assumption. There are literally hundreds of thousands of fossils warehoused in many collections, that have never been examined or studied, other than an initial guess at what they are in the field, to facilitate storage. And there are many examples of fossils that were initially incorrectly examined, studied and categorized. There are literally hundreds of years of graduate student man-years of work available just going through existing fossil collections and studying what has not been looked at since they were originally stored. And that is not counting any re-examination of previously studied fossils, using more modern techniques and theories. I would be willing to bet that we already have some sort of fossil record of BF, just incorrectly indentified, not recognized, or not even studied at all.

Thank you.

[Guest]

They're inadmissible to this discussion unless you have proof that a significant number of eyewitnesses were mistaken or lying.

Contrary to what you appear to think, the general tenor of learned thought on this subject is that, when there is no apparent reason to disbelieve the witness, one should not. It's that whole evidence thing. You don't call someone a liar unless they are.

do you...?

It's not that simple, given what we know about memory and how it can be manipulated. .

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Not admissible to the discussion, however. Most reports have pretty much ruled out any indicator that the witness shouldn't be taken seriously.

If we didn't take eyewitness testimony seriously much better than 99% of the time, we'd never have gotten into caves, much less out of them.

[Oonjerah]

BFSleuth's sig: "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling a pig, sooner or later

you will realize they both like it."

I liked it too, when I was a kid. Later I liked being the know-it-all, & when the internet

came, I liked being the find-it-all. I recently "retired" from years of finding the stuff that

no one else could find when they wouldn't do a 10-minute search, let alone an extended

one. Perhaps I am past those "scores," but NM.

I find myself reluctant to post in this thread. But am doing it.

===========

From the evidence that I perceive and believe, Bigfoot exists, looks like a man, walks like a

man, but became big and hairy to survive in the wilderness. Likely he's as smart as Neanderthal

was, tho not so much in the tool making & fire. When it comes to surviving in the woods smarts,

he may be the best. I suppose he doesn't have as well-developed left-brain functions as we do.

Does that infer that he has well-developed right-brain functions instead? Unknown. Is he way

smarter than us in some ways? Most likely. Does his diet provide enough sugar for his brain to

"run hot" like ours? I sorta doubt it.

I know he knows more about us than we know about him. He needs to know about us for survival,

so he does.

We don't need to know about him at all. We(Footers) like to think about him, that he is Real

or a Tall Tale to satisfy our imaginations, curiosity or egos. 'Cept for the few who are more

objective about the possibility, evidence, or science of him.

It's apparent that we shouldn't expect to find his remains oftener than a bear's. Nevertheless ...

Most primitive people, given a choice, will die at home with their kin. If they die in the field,

their companions will likely take them home. How does Bigfoot dispose of his dead?

I don't know. I'm hoping he'll tell us if we ever get onto a conversational level with him.

OTOH, (Stranger in a Strange Land) it's a sin to waste food.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

^Indeed. In some ways the reports do track with population as well. The distribution of reports in CA, OR, and WA might indicate a real species that is more abundant in the coastal ranges than anywhere else. It could also indicate that there are an awful lot of day-trippers from metro Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco who explore those forests and take advantage of the opportunity to spin a bigfoot yarn.

I can tell you one thing, though: the BFRO lists 545 reports for Washington alone. That's 545 times people have claimed to see bigfoot in the state of Washington. Sooty Grouse is a species that approximates a similar range to that reported for bigfoot in the PNW. According to the database in eBird, there are 264 reports of Sooty Grouse in Washington State. What that suggests to me is that it's potentially more common for a person in Washington State to report encountering a bigfoot than it is to report encountering a Sooty Grouse. I'm not sure what that means, other than to illustrate that 545 is a big number when it comes to reports of a wildlife species. It strikes me as incongruous that we could have so many people encountering this bigfoot creature but no one able to so much as provide a compelling photograph.

Thank you for the kind words, Cervelo.

What this suggests to me is that there are 264 birdwatchers in Washington State.

[Guest thermalman]

It's not that simple, given what we know about memory and how it can be manipulated. .

Soooo......You're attempting to manipulate our memory and thinking? Still waiting for an answer to the disappearance of the millions of buffalo bones? Try not to miss the point this time?

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Not admissible to the discussion, however. Most reports have pretty much ruled out any indicator that the witness shouldn't be taken seriously.

Sure. By people who probably never read these.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/Wells_articles_pdf/Eyewitness_Testimony_Ann_Rev.pdf

[xspider1]

If we didn't take eyewitness testimony seriously much better than 99% of the time, we'd never have gotten into caves, much less out of them.

^ plus that I don't really buy into the idea that so much eye-witness testimony, on-going for centuries, of anything this wide-spread could be wrong.

I'm never the bones of millions of individuals of a species should be found. All we need is one.

One bone will prove sasquatch? That's news to me, which bone is magic like that, the wish-bone?

The 'nayshouting' reference and the 'sooty grouse' above are priceless. .

Edited December 15, 2012 by xspider1

[Guest]

Soooo......You're attempting to manipulate our memory and thinking? Still waiting for an answer to the disappearance of the millions of buffalo bones? Try not to miss the point this time?

Read post 1483 again.

[Guest thermalman]

I did, but I don't understand? It kinda mixed me up.

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest BFSleuth]

Isn't Patty supposed to have one?

It has been posited that Patty has a sagittal crest. I'm not aware this has been confirmed in any manner.

Not entirely. But it's not a good sign.

Thank you for confirming that absence of a fossil record doesn't disqualify modern sightings. That's a start toward putting the argument in proper perspective, however you wish to add qualifiers.

[Guest]

I did, but I don't understand? It kinda mixed me up.

There are around 27 (I think) Tyrannosaurus skeletons available but thats nothing compared to the millions of individual T-rex that have lived. However, the number of fossils we have of them is enough for us.

You say that 2 million bisons where killed. I agree that the bones of the vast majority of them would be lost, but museums do have bison bones and they may have came from those million killed. Also why limit to those 2 million? Why not all the bison that have ever lived?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Yet another factoid you throw out without thinking whether it actually fits your argument. The majority of primates live in the tropics which are very poor for fossilization. Bigfoot does not have that luxury.

And because I like the hoist-with-own petard way of doing business:

Dinosaurs lived in tropical environments. Look at all the fossils we have of them. A good indicator - using your argument, not mine - that many of the fossil primates that we haven't found yet, we will find in temperate environments.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

And because I like the hoist-with-own petard way of doing business:

Dinosaurs lived in tropical environments. Look at all the fossils we have of them.

I meant that the majority of primates live in tropical rainforests, which have relativity poor fossilization.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer