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

[Guest crabshack]

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?

Search for wildman sightings.

Vikings led by Leif Ericson made their way to the East Coast of North America in 986 CE. It was there that they reported seeing an “horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with big black eyes†(Ericson, Leif. 986 CE) creature. They called the creature “Skellringâ€.

Edited December 16, 2012 by crabshack

[Guest thermalman]

Zoala, you're likely right. But if the remains were buried, for whatever reason, then the burial secret died with the shooter.

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

I can guarantee you 100%, that we have NOT found fossils of everything that ever lived on this planet. Bones of previously unknown creatures are popping up all the time. So if they able to remain hidden for millions of years then it's not likely you'll see a body or bones of BF for a long time.

But, I could also be totally wrong about the BF body/bones time frame.

Edited December 16, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

So all the sasquatch shot were just buried? How convenient. So there's something special about them that hunters had to bury them.

Once again, lets take a look at the classification dates for the large mammals of NA after the Linneaus system was established

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Zimmermann, 1780.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Rafinesque, 1817.

American bison (Bison bison) Linnaeus, 1758.

Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) Zimmermann, 1780

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Shaw, 1804.

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Ord, 1815.

Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) Blainville, 1816.

Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli) Nelson, 1884.

Coyote (Canis latrans) Say, 1823.

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Schreber, 1777.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Kerr, 1792.

Cougar (Puma concolor), Linnaeus, 1771.

American black bear (Ursus americanus) Pallas, 1780.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest crabshack]

What if they eat their dead?

[Guest thermalman]

Good question Crabshack. +1

So all the sasquatch shot were just buried? How convenient. So there's something special about them that hunters had to bury them.

Once again, lets take a look at the classification dates for the large mammals of NA after the Linneaus system was established

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Zimmermann, 1780.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Rafinesque, 1817.

American bison (Bison bison) Linnaeus, 1758.

Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) Zimmermann, 1780

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Shaw, 1804.

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Ord, 1815.

Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) Blainville, 1816.

Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli) Nelson, 1884.

Coyote (Canis latrans) Say, 1823.

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Schreber, 1777.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Kerr, 1792.

Cougar (Puma concolor), Linnaeus, 1771.

American black bear (Ursus americanus) Pallas, 1780.

What's your point? Spell it out for us simple folk.

Edited December 16, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

So how early large NA mammals were catalogued (as in a speciman obtained) and classified?

Edited December 16, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest thermalman]

Ok. What about the mammals before the catalogue? How would you account for them?

[xspider1]

Still waiting to hear how people are only seeing folklore and cultural phenomenon... The only thing missing (so far) from the list of large NA mammals that have been catagorized is anything elusive with an IQ over 4.

[Oonjerah]

What if they eat their dead?

I alluded to that in #1490. Guess no one caught it.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Oonjerah

[norseman]

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...

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....

Bud, I think I speak for everyone when I say that your not in the least wasting bandwidth.............

I always thought that acidic soils where bad areas for fossilization regardless of where in that area the animal died.

[Guest]

Ok. What about the mammals before the catalogue? How would you account for them?

Come again?

Still waiting to hear how people are only seeing folklore and cultural phenomenon... The only thing missing (so far) from the list of large NA mammals that have been catagorized is anything elusive with an IQ over 4.

People experience something in the woods they don't understand and interpet it as a bigfoot. Due to bigfoot's cultural status, he always in someone's subconscious.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

Search for wildman sightings.

Vikings led by Leif Ericson made their way to the East Coast of North America in 986 CE. It was there that they reported seeing an “horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with big black eyes†(Ericson, Leif. 986 CE) creature. They called the creature “Skellringâ€.

I started replying to this as I wanted to mention that Leif Erikson left no writings that this could be attributed too, further the year of the purported writing is not possible as Erik the Red (Leif's father) had not yet made it to Greenland at the time. Looking around for the source of that quote I then found there is a much better researched reply to the Skraeling is bigfoot idea here: http://skepticalhumanities.com/tag/leif-eiriksson/. A small snippet is below (you should read the whole thing it shows the length facts are twisted and things outright made up in footery "literature", then repeated as truth).

As for the description of the Skrælings which inspired Byrne to think of Bigfoot, it’s a pretty close paraphrase of a description in Eric’s Saga:

Þeir váru svartir menn ok illiligir ok höfðu illt hár á höfði. Þeir váru mjök eygðir ok breiðir í kinnum. (chap. 10)

This can be translated as, “They were dark men and ill-looking and had bad hair on their heads. They were large-eyed and broad-cheeked†(my translation). “Illt,†used to describe the Skrælings’ hair, can mean “ill, evil, bad; hard, difficult; close, mean, stingy.†Magnus Magnusson and Herman Pálsson translate it as “coarse.†So the excessive hairiness that so fascinated Byrne is just hair that the Norse considered ugly. And it’s not body hair: the description says they had bad hair on their heads. This description comes from the manuscript Hauksbók. The other manuscript, Skálholtsbók, describes the Skrælings as smáir, small, rather than svartir, black or dark. So the huge, hairy, bigfooty Skrælings were neither large nor particularly hairy.

Edited December 16, 2012 by NukaCola

[Guest thermalman]

Come again?

People experience something in the woods they don't understand and interpet it as a bigfoot. Due to bigfoot's cultural status, he always in someone's subconscious.

OK Lets start over..........What is your point about your catologue listing above? Also, are you conceding that all BF were buried?

Edited December 16, 2012 by thermalman

[indiefoot]

Just hang on a bit.

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Zimmermann, 1780.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Rafinesque, 1817.

American bison (Bison bison) Linnaeus, 1758.

Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) Zimmermann, 1780

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Shaw, 1804.

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Ord, 1815.

Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) Blainville, 1816.

Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli) Nelson, 1884.

Coyote (Canis latrans) Say, 1823.

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Schreber, 1777.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Kerr, 1792.

Cougar (Puma concolor), Linnaeus, 1771.

American black bear (Ursus americanus) Pallas, 1780.

Sasquatch (Homo whoopsidaisy). Ketchum, 2013

Edited December 16, 2012 by indiefoot

[Guest Cervelo]

I think the points really simple whitey showed up and found all the large critters except one that persist today for most people as a myth.