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

[Guest]

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.

We don't have to go that far. Just look at the Pleistocene.

[Guest DWA]

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.

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.

That's a presumption, and you certainly cannot predict what you will or will not find from it.

Once again, evidence of something now trumps no evidence of anything in rocks, every single time. You have to explain why this evidence is occuring, and fossils (or lack of same) don't help you do that. The fossil dodge is just a red herring drawn across this subject by scientists who have no desire to bother with it, simple as that.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

No. Ancedotes do not trump the lack of fossils.

[Guest DWA]

No. Ancedotes do not trump the lack of fossils.

No, they trump it cubed and in spades, because their breadth and depth indicates a source external to the observers.

All the lack of fossils means is, come on, you know this:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any scientist will tell you that.

Which is why I said NEXT! a long long time ago. No scientist worth his degree ever postulates a lack of something as an excuse to ignore a bunch of something. Unless he has forgotten what it means to be a scientist, which any scientist who takes that position definitely has.

How much more plain can it be than what I have said numerous times?

You don't look in rocks for what is not there to determine what thousands of people are seeing that's right here right now. It's like digging a well to find out what the moon is.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

No, they trump it cubed and in spades, because their breadth and depth indicates a source external to the observers.

Uh, no. They indicate a folklore external to the observers.

[Guest DWA]

I'll let others argue that with you. I'm right, and moving on.

[Guest]

Most psychologists would say your wrong on eyewitnesses.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest BFSleuth]

No. Ancedotes do not trump the lack of fossils.

What's up with the lack of fossils argument? You've already admitted that lack of fossils doesn't automatically negate modern eyewitness sightings. I'd say you're beating a dead horse, but your argument is already fossilized.... just sayin'.

[Guest]

What's up with the lack of fossils argument? You've already admitted that lack of fossils doesn't automatically negate modern eyewitness sightings. I'd say you're beating a dead horse, but your argument is already fossilized.... just sayin'.

I meant lack of fossils doesn't 100% disprove bigfoot but its still not a good sign.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Nor is it a good sign for the other 95% of extant species that don't have a fossil record either.

It's frightening, will they all disappear for lack of a fossil record?

[Guest RayG]

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.

What I actually said was "there have been bigfoot researchers on the ground in the Oklahoma/Texas area for more than seven years", but yes, obviously success has been lacking.

Regardless of whether it's seven years (as I said), or ten years (as Cryptomundo implied), the results have failed to produce, discover, or classify a new North American biped.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

Most psychologists would say your wrong on eyewitnesses.

I would agree that not everyone witnesses an event, 9/11 for example, in the same way. Each individual would focus on different details of the same event. But, the point being, there was an event to witness.

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

You ever talk to any BF winesses about their sighting?

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

No, they trump it cubed and in spades, because their breadth and depth indicates a source external to the observers.

All the lack of fossils means is, come on, you know this:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any scientist will tell you that.

Which is why I said NEXT! a long long time ago. No scientist worth his degree ever postulates a lack of something as an excuse to ignore a bunch of something. Unless he has forgotten what it means to be a scientist, which any scientist who takes that position definitely has.

How much more plain can it be than what I have said numerous times?

You don't look in rocks for what is not there to determine what thousands of people are seeing that's right here right now. It's like digging a well to find out what the moon is.

Ever consider that the "something" just isn't strong enough to look into?

[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.

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.

Okay, I will keep this in perspective... and so I will attempt to address this once more. And then I will follow Cervelo's advice from above and stop wasting bandwidth...

Fossilization is mainly dependent on the quick burial of organic remains in an anoxic (oxygen-poor) environment, to stop the degradation of organic tissue (this includes bone) and to promote the replacement of organic tissue with inorganic mineral. It is NOT dependent on the size of the bones as you mention, and not necessarily dependent on the environment that the animal lived in. Where the bones end up residing is the deciding factor. You can have excellent sub-environments for fossilization in an overall poor environment for fossilization (i.e. lakes, rivers and deltas in tropical environments; bogs and swamps in arboreal forests, etc.).

The broad brush that you use categorizing living environments as predictive for good or poor fossilization (i.e. poor fossil creating environment in tropics, and good in arboreal forests) is mostly irrelevant. What counts is the environment that the bones end up in, not where the animal lived. That will determine whether or not a fossil can be created.

As for bone size, if you think about it just a little bit and extrapolate logically, it is far easier to quickly bury small animals and small bone pieces, just based on sheer volume of material to be buried. Hence the predominance of small fossils in the fossil record. Your argument of big bones equals good chances for fossilization is just not correct or logical. Otherwise, we would be overrun by saropod dinosaur and mammoth/mastodon fossils, and have nothing else.

Also, please note that most large vertebrate fossils are found in hundreds to thousands of pieces; they rarely look in the field like what you see in pictures and museums. If you look closely at a mounted fossil animal, you will see that a very significant portion of the animal's remains are actually extrapolated to fil in missing pieces, based on comparisons to like fossils elsewhere, or on the assumed anatomy of the animal. The rest will be like a jigsaw puzzle that has been glued together.

I don't know if you have much of a background in geology or paleontology, but it helps if you try to get the basic priciples of a discipline right before you try to base an argument on them...

Okay, now saving bandwidth...

We don't have to go that far. Just look at the Pleistocene.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but the length of the Pleistocene was about 2.5 My. Nearly all modern mammals evolved into their current incarnation during this time period.

Okay, I am out....

[Guest]

Sometimes a change in perspective can help. Europeans settled in North America in large numbers starting from the 1600s and the immigration rates just climbed higher and higher. As a result, more and more land was cleared. Similar things happened in Africa but with less Europeans. So how is it that we can have multiple specimens of gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans as far back as the 1700s but not a single bigfoot? I mean seriously, we had immigrants from all around the world coming during the 1800s and even though there was a lot of undiscovered land, we also covered a lot of land and surely they must have killed one bigfoot?

As for the eyewitness reports, there are also "reports" and "evidence" for stuff like spontaneous human combustion. In fact there are more high quality photos depicting that phenomenon than bigfoot. So why is it that bigfoot is so believable for some people?