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

[Guest thermalman]

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?

My point is, that if we don't have all the bones from 2 million bison, how would one expect to find the bones of just one BF, if their numbers are exponentially smaller?

[Guest]

My point is, that if we don't have all the bones from 2 million bison, how would one expect to find the bones of just one BF, if their numbers are exponentially smaller?

I'm not limiting it to sasquatch that are supposably alive today but to those that have ever lived as well as possible sasquatch ancestors and relatives.

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.

So are you suggesting sasquatch and his ink evolved elsewhere and migrated to NA?

[Guest thermalman]

Still likely very small numbers. Some experienced hunters have never ever come across bones of bear or other wild known animals all the years they hunted. So, to expect bones to appear from a BF, is even more unlikely, if the estimated numbers are even smaller yet. It all has to be put into perspective.

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Sorry, but the sighting reports are gonna be held against the mainstream when this animal is confirmed. There won't be any appeal then.

Huh ? So you and your lawyer friend are actually planning some sort of no-holds barred, take no prisioners litigation against mainstream science ?

[Guest]

It's been said here that we might want to start conducting digs to find fossil evidence of bigfoot. If there are barely a handful of Bigfoot researchers on staffs in universities across the country, I'd imagine qualified bigfoot archeaologists are probably a bit harder to come by. And it's safe to say that any funding for these digs is going to be more rare than a Sooty Grouse. So when asking why aren't we out there digging, who are you speaking of? Should I grab my rock hammer like Andy Dufresne?

[Guest DWA]

Huh ? So you and your lawyer friend are actually planning some sort of no-holds barred, take no prisioners litigation against mainstream science ?

It's class action, get in on the ground floor, you will weep when this ship sails without you.

It's been said here that we might want to start conducting digs to find fossil evidence of bigfoot. If there are barely a handful of Bigfoot researchers on staffs in universities across the country, I'd imagine qualified bigfoot archeaologists are probably a bit harder to come by. And it's safe to say that any funding for these digs is going to be more rare than a Sooty Grouse. So when asking why aren't we out there digging, who are you speaking of? Should I grab my rock hammer like Andy Dufresne?

I'm thinking that it might be easier to look for what's running around on the ground than what may or may not be hiding in sediments.

Dang shame that most of Beringia is underwater now. Might have been a place to look. Shoot.

[Guest]

Are you suggesting at sasquatch fossils so closely resemble humans that they aren't noticed? I'm pretty sure they'd noctice a skull with a sagittal crest.

Who said anything about an intact skull? There are approximately 206 bones (give or take a few, it has been a few years since I have needed to know) in the human (or close human relative) skeleton. Intact primate skulls are the rarest of all primate fossils. It is much more likely that disarticulated hand and wrist bones, foot bones, broken portions of the various arm/leg bones, and ribs will be preserved, soley due to the shape and relative strength of the bones, and the number of bones involved. Any portions of the skull are most likely to be broken up and not recognizable (for the most part) to a non-primate specialist (most paleontologists).

And, there is always the possibility that bones currently categorized as human are actually BF. There is most likely a lot of overlap in size, robustness, etc. between human and BF bones. (If you don't think it is actually possible to mix up closely related primate bones, try mixing up some human and chimpanzee bone fragments and see how well you can reliably tell them apart.) And since we don't have any positively identified BF bones to look at and compare with (it's not a real animal, according to the scientific world, don't yah know), I think this is a strong possibility. I think it is highly likely that at least some small percentage of the primate bones indentified as human in North America are BF bones.

So, arguing the rarest (and easiest to identify if intact) case for the lack of identified BF fossils just doesn't cut it. Nice try, though...

[Guest RayG]

Well, yeah, but I'd sort of like to see evidence evidence get followed up. In both disciplines, that has to happen for us to get anywhere.

What 'evidence evidence'? The stuff that never turns out to be from a bigfoot?

OP has been at it about a third as long as Jane was by the time she saw her first chimp.

Hang on now. I guess if we ignore Operation Thicket Probe (2005), Operations Thicket Probe II & Forest Vigil (2006), and Operation Endurance (2011), then sure, Operation Persistence (2012) is a failure compared to Jane Goodall.

Keep in mind however, that Jane Goodall saw chimps stripping leaves off stems to make rudimentary tools within her first year of arriving at Gombe.

Operation Persistence may have some new players, but it's basically the same game they've been playing since at least 2005 (it says on Cryptomundo that the TBRC has been at it for over a decade). So obviously there have been bigfoot researchers on the ground in the Oklahoma/Texas area for more than seven years. So in one year Jane Goodall was far more successful than the entire TBRC organization has been in over a decade.

Doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism.

RayG

[Guest DWA]

What 'evidence evidence'? The stuff that never turns out to be from a bigfoot?

Sighting reports and trackways tell you that this thing may be found here, here, here, there....now, where does there seem to be a recent concentration of them? Send [Goodall] there. Or the TBRC, same diff. Maybe. I wonder whether a solo researcher might have more luck. No TBRC researcher has been alone enough on site in X for us to know that.

Hang on now. I guess if we ignore Operation Thicket Probe (2005), Operations Thicket Probe II & Forest Vigil (2006), and Operation Endurance (2011), then sure, Operation Persistence (2012) is a failure compared to Jane Goodall.

Keep in mind however, that Jane Goodall saw chimps stripping leaves off stems to make rudimentary tools within her first year of arriving at Gombe.

Operation Persistence may have some new players, but it's basically the same game they've been playing since at least 2005 (it says on Cryptomundo that the TBRC has been at it for over a decade). So obviously there have been bigfoot researchers on the ground in the Oklahoma/Texas area for more than seven years. So in one year Jane Goodall was far more successful than the entire TBRC organization has been in over a decade.

Doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism.

RayG

Nah, we ignore all those.

As I've said here more than once, three-day field trips are about 99.999999999999% of the saslooking going on. They won't do anything productive. All those field trips you cite started running into interesting stuff ...and then everybody had to go back to work. The lack of build was why they moved to Endurance/Persistence. I was suggesting this to them as far back as 2007. I'm not taking credit, just saying that the need for extended field time was pretty obvious to me, particularly given how well it worked for Roger Patterson. (The time he spent might not have been enough had it not been for their horses.)

Jane ran Persistence from Day One. That is the critical difference.

[Guest RayG]

I'd say the critical difference is that Goodall produced the goods.

RayG

[Guest]

Sighting reports and trackways tell you that this thing may be found here, here, here, there....now, where does there seem to be a recent concentration of them? Send [Goodall] there. Or the TBRC, same diff. Maybe. I wonder whether a solo researcher might have more luck. No TBRC researcher has been alone enough on site in X for us to know that.

Nah, we ignore all those.

As I've said here more than once, three-day field trips are about 99.999999999999% of the saslooking going on. They won't do anything productive. All those field trips you cite started running into interesting stuff ...and then everybody had to go back to work. The lack of build was why they moved to Endurance/Persistence. I was suggesting this to them as far back as 2007. I'm not taking credit, just saying that the need for extended field time was pretty obvious to me, particularly given how well it worked for Roger Patterson. (The time he spent might not have been enough had it not been for their horses.)

Jane ran Persistence from Day One. That is the critical difference.

What was Rene Dahinden's problem?

[Guest]

Jane ran Persistence from Day One. That is the critical difference.

That there is the money quote. The Leakey Angels (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leakey's_Angels ) all had one thing to do: observe their target primate; and record, analyze and report their findings. Nothing else. That was their job. (And they had the luxury of observing a recognized and accepted species...)

[Guest DWA]

I'd say the critical difference is that Goodall produced the goods.

RayG

Well, if we can presume TBRC isn't lying to us, they have goods under observation already. Keep in mind that Jane's Good[all]s were an already-accepted species. This is one where we all have to keep in mind the possibility that good people are wrong or worse, lying. Big diff there.

What was Rene Dahinden's problem?

I don't think he ever spent enough consecutive days in habitat to bring anything back. OK, not sure here: did he ever even see one?

I'm not sure what his longest time in habitat was. But that seems to be the critical issue (as I could have told you before the first episode of "Losing Bigfoot.")

[Guest]

The problem is... sasquatch should have been cataloged and classified a long time ago. Take a look at the classification dates for the large mammals of NA and all expect the Dall's sheep were classified before the gorilla. Carl Linnaeus classified the orangutan in 1760 and Petrus Camper was dissecting some soon after.

The West knew little about the great apes until Leakey's angels but specimans were obtained early on, in a time when people had no problem shooting and killing them.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[indiefoot]

Two points,

Many buffalo bones were collected for fertilizer.

http://www.abilenete...tory.com/?p=161

Second point,

If eyewitness accounts are notoriously faulty, I wonder how many people who report catching a glimps of a bear or a moose actually were seeing a Bigfoot?

Edited December 15, 2012 by indiefoot