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

[Guest thermalman]

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

RayG

Yes she did. It was like walking into Wal-Mart looking for coke.

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.

So where are the specimens now? Maybe make a point of looking for them yourself and proving yay or nay for the rest of us.

[Guest DWA]

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?

I frequently say this:

Mistake a bigfoot for a bear or moose: likely happens a lot.

The other way? Never happens.

This is yet another way in which "bigfoot skeptics" ignore the way reality works. When you see something, you plant it - or try to - somewhere in your file cabinet of "knowns." Most of us don't have a cabinet of "unknowns" into which we rapidly file anything we see. The sasquatch encounter literature is rife with examples of the witness trying...trying...failing to find a file folder into which to put the sighting.

Is it conceivable that any given person could see a known animal and think, bigfoot? I suppose.

But it is very unlikely. Hearing or seeing a departing bigfoot and thinking moose or bear? The encounter records might double or triple if we could somehow get a count of all of those. And keep in mind that for anything like this, reports are likely but a fraction of actual encounters.

Just how the world works.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA

[Guest Cervelo]

Maybe your world

[Guest DWA]

Maybe your world

Nope, that's the world.

Know whose experience I'm using as evidence?

Mine.

And yours. Think about it. ;-)

[Guest Cervelo]

The only thing your using is bandwidth....and wasting it

[Guest DWA]

The only thing your using is bandwidth....and wasting it

I could say the same. Too many people don't do enough thinking when this is the topic.

[Guest]

^ 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 do. Its called "folklore" and "cultural phenomenon".

[Guest Cervelo]

I could say the same. Too many people don't do enough thinking when this is the topic.

Well that we can agree on

[Guest McGman]

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

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.

Wait a minute. You're going to sue people for not finding Bigfoot?

[Guest DWA]

Right. Sounds like a great idea. /sarcasm

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

The "Giganto hypothesis," one of the leading theories of sasquatch proponents, presumes precisely that; sasquatch, just like many other animals now in NA and many now extinct, migrated across Beringia when the NA and Eurasian land masses were joined.

Now primate fossils have been found in NA. Just not higher primates. But I don't think that makes it reasonable to presume that prosimians just became extinct in NA and that no primate evolution beyond that took place in NA. It's just part of that 95% of primate fossils that we don't have. Yet.

So there are at least two possible ways sasquatch got here; either one remains plausible.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA

[xspider1]

I do. Its called "folklore" and "cultural phenomenon".

Sorry, but that just won't cover it. Plenty of Bigfoot witnesses don't seem to know or even care much about "folklore" and as people continue to look straight at us and say: "I saw a giant, human/ape looking beast in the woods", we can't just say: "No you didn't, what you saw is a 'cultural phenomenon'. There's just not anywhere near enough Science in those 'explanations' for a valid conclusion.

[Guest]

The "Giganto hypothesis," one of the leading theories of sasquatch proponents, presumes precisely that; sasquatch, just like many other animals now in NA and many now extinct, migrated across Beringia when the NA and Eurasian land masses were joined.

I suspected that, but when?

[Guest DWA]

I suspected that, but when?

Read this (which involves some BFRO takes on evidence that one is not necessarily constrained to believe):

http://bfro.net/ref/theories/mjm/whatrtha.asp

[Guest]

The BFRO repeats alot of the same mistakes. They say that we shouldn't find sasquatch in NA because we only have some jaws of Giganto. But again, giganto lived in tropical rainforests which equal poor fossilization.

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).

I'm not surprised given that most primates live in tropical rainforests and are small in size. However, let's keep this in persepective. Sasquatch is supposed to live in areas with relatively good fossilization and is supposed to be giant size. The larger the vertebrate, the easier it can be fossilized.

[Guest]

Most all of the TBRC's operations up until recently consisted of deploying and monitorinig trail cams. Obviously success has been lacking with this approach. They decided to switch up tactics and they are making much more progress. So you can't really say they've been doing what they are currently doing for over a decade and failing.