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

[norseman]

ronn1 is guilty of nothing more than really considering what might be necessary for a species like what we think a bigfoot is to survive a harsh northern winter. At this point the discussion seems suited to a separate thread.

I grew up in the foothills of the Adirondacks in NY. It is an interesting question to consider how large mammals survive those winters, 'cause they can be really brutal and there really isn't that much to eat. Deer and moose (not that there are a lot of moose in the Adirondacks, but there appear to be some) survive harsh winters by eating lots of low quality vegetation (what, twigs for dinner again?), reducing energy expenditure as much as possible, and growing dense winter coats. Bears pile on huge amounts of fat, have dense coats, and go dormant for a few months to reduce energy expenditure.

What might bigfoots do? Well, they could pile on fat, go dormant, grow dense coats, eat a lot of low quality food, or eat a lot of high-quality food. Any and all of the previous would be possible; what ronn1 is caught on is that none of them seem at all likely given what we think we know about bigfoots right now. When you really start to visualize how any one of them might work, you quickly arrive at something untenable.

I've already addressed the problem with "caves", another popular one is that bigfoots simply turn their attention to running deer in the winter. That would solve the "food" problem of trying to figure out how bigfoots might process enough willow twigs to stay alive by providing them with a really nutritious, energy-rich food source in venison - and venison liver! But again, when you really start thinking about how many deer it might take to sustain a small family of bigfoots living, I don't know, just for the sake of argument at toejam's research site in Ontario, those numbers pile up. It sure wouldn't be easy for a bunch of bigfoots to keep their presence a secret if they're relying on hunting a deer every couple of days just to survive. Wolf hunts leave an awful lot of footprints in the snow; I imagine bigfoot hunts would too.

These kinds of speculative discussions don't mean that bigfoots can't have some whiz-bang mechanism for surviving harsh northern winters that we don't know about or can't figure out, but they never seem to be the tidy explanations that a lot of folks would like them to be. It's just another thing about bigfoot that doesn't mean there's no bigfoot, but it certainly doesn't help the case for bigfoot.

Ronn1 is guilty of not considering any other argument than his own. The issue he brought up in the beginning was a fair question. But I countered his argument with examples of Hominids living in brutally cold climates without the use of fire or clothing or both. He ignored this by saying that it was impossible. I of course cited material for him to peruse.

He also continues to bring up how Patty's hair seems to lack the density in order to survive a harsh Canadian winter. I pointed to the obvious that Patty's picture was taken in Bluff creek California and not Canada. And that northern California is much more temperate in winter time than Canada. He ignored this statement as well and continued on with his diatribe.

At that point I bowed out of the conversation.

So let me get this straight.......we filmed a creature in California who has hair that doesn't appear to be dense enough for winter in Canada, and because of it's seemingly sparse body hair that alone doesn't help the case of it's existence? But the creature was filmed in CALIFORNIA! I'm beginning to question some skeptics logic here. If I filmed two white tail deer in January..........one living in Mexico and one living in Alberta? I would expect the deer in Alberta to have a thicker coat. Same species........same time of year but different ENVIRONMENTS.

I also would like to propose the most obvious explanation that is also grounded in Native American folklore........they migrate. They don't stay up at 7000 ft in January. They go seek low ground that is warmer and more protected from the winds. And for that matter so do most animals that do not hibernate or fly south for the winter. One exception is the Mountain Caribou.

[Guest]

^Sure norseman, another possibility could be that bigfoots could simply tolerate the cold much better than we can, as the Fuegians did. But my reading suggests that these peoples used fire and wore skins of seals and/or otters. I'm not sure if ronn1 addressed that in his comments to you.

Migration is another possibility, but it creates problems too when you really consider how it might work.

[norseman]

^Sure norseman, another possibility could be that bigfoots could simply tolerate the cold much better than we can, as the Fuegians did. But my reading suggests that these peoples used fire and wore skins of seals and/or otters. I'm not sure if ronn1 addressed that in his comments to you.

Well, the pictures I saw they draped a skin over them, they were completely naked under neath and bare foot. No matter what we think of Patty's hair density, she was filmed in a region of the Americas much more TEMPERATE than the Fuegians, and she gets to wear her "fur skin" permanently attached.

I also brought up the fact that Homo Erectus habitation predates the usage of fire in Europe. There is also no evidence that Homo Erectus wore clothing, nor manufactured tools associated with clothing manufacture.

I really just don't see this as such a high hurdle as some think..........as you in the past have alluded to also.

Migration is another possibility, but it creates problems too when you really consider how it might work.

I would like to hear your hypothesis on what problems it creates.

Because I think I know the direction your going and I would certainly find it easier to bag one if they had a home range of a few miles and never left that home range. A animal that is constantly on the move is a much harder target to hunt systematically. But it may create more sightings crossing a road at 2 am.

[Guest]

Simple test. If bigfoot's confirmed today, who screwed for not being able to find it earlier? There's your answer.

Fixed.

name='DWA' timestamp='1358013860' post='683990'][/b]

Once again, one can't blame the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it.

And this is my favorite BF excuse.

[dmaker]

Does a black bear in California have a different coat than a black bear in Canada?

[norseman]

Does a black bear in California have a different coat than a black bear in Canada?

I cannot speak for a California black bear, but coyote pelts in northern climes bring higher prices than their southern cousins.

[Guest RayG]

Great so where have they published their studies?

That's what I keep asking. The find of a lifetime, of such incredible magnitude the mind can scarcely grasp it, multiple scientists, and nothing gets published.

I swear, I hear this noise in my head whenever I think of that...

RayG

[norseman]

Ok......so let's review.

Facts:

1) Scientifically Sasquatch does not exist.

2) Science needs a type specimen in order to classify it as a species.

3) All evidence supplied thus far by the Bigfoot community is considered anecdotal by science.

I'm good with all of that, no matter how compelling I find some of the anecdotal to be, or my own experience.

But.........if we have any hope of collecting a type specimen? Then somehow, someway we have to sift through what is wheat and what is chaff concerning the anecdotal evidence. Why? Well because somebody with INTENT TO KILL has to be in the right place at the right time with the right knowledge and gear to make it happen.

How does science suggest the best way to go about this? Don't waste the time because the animal is a myth? Or is there a better way to go about attempting a real stab at it?

[Guest DWA]

ronn1 is guilty of nothing more than really considering what might be necessary for a species like what we think a bigfoot is to survive a harsh northern winter. At this point the discussion seems suited to a separate thread.

What might bigfoots do? Well, they could pile on fat, go dormant, grow dense coats, eat a lot of low quality food, or eat a lot of high-quality food. Any and all of the previous would be possible; what ronn1 is caught on is that none of them seem at all likely given what we think we know about bigfoots right now. When you really start to visualize how any one of them might work, you quickly arrive at something untenable.

I've already addressed the problem with "caves", another popular one is that bigfoots simply turn their attention to running deer in the winter. That would solve the "food" problem of trying to figure out how bigfoots might process enough willow twigs to stay alive by providing them with a really nutritious, energy-rich food source in venison - and venison liver! But again, when you really start thinking about how many deer it might take to sustain a small family of bigfoots living, I don't know, just for the sake of argument at toejam's research site in Ontario, those numbers pile up. It sure wouldn't be easy for a bunch of bigfoots to keep their presence a secret if they're relying on hunting a deer every couple of days just to survive. Wolf hunts leave an awful lot of footprints in the snow; I imagine bigfoot hunts would too.

These kinds of speculative discussions don't mean that bigfoots can't have some whiz-bang mechanism for surviving harsh northern winters that we don't know about or can't figure out, but they never seem to be the tidy explanations that a lot of folks would like them to be. It's just another thing about bigfoot that doesn't mean there's no bigfoot, but it certainly doesn't help the case for bigfoot.

Well, actually, ronn1 is guilty of not listening to reasoned responses that tell him that we don't know enough about this yet to say anything definitive about sasquatch and winter other than that they seem to be doing quite well in places where it's cold then. I'd also consider him guilty of a significant bit of illogic. Evidence indicates there are primates that can do this. So they can. Now we are done, until we have specimens, have studied the animal in the wild, and have answered the obvious questions (which clearly other animals have answered themselves; no reason an ape couldn't, particularly when monkeys have). There is no logical way to get from monkeys-do-it to this-can't. To attempt to continue this cag is to do something other than what people do when they are trying to resolve questions such as this. (Hint: get the answers. There are ways to do that.)

There is no reason sasquatch couldn't mix all the living strategies used by other animals to get through winters: sleeping; high-protein food scores; meager forage that can get a HUGE moose through a winter without resort to anything else; etc., etc. Bigfoot running deer in OH did manage to keep it a secret. Not from bigfoot researchers, now, but from the scientific community, which, come on, isn't what I or my twelve-year-old would call difficult: http://www.bfro.net/avevid/mjm/deerkills.asp

The whiz-bang mechanism(s), when discovered, likely won't be that much more fantastical than the mammal with the duck's bill that lays eggs, or the lemur that lives off the fat stored in its tail; or the white-tail deer, which anyone just looking at one knows couldn't make it through winter in Miami much less Canada.

Edited January 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Researchers may need to reconsider how smart the animal that they look for is. If they do exist, then I think it's possible to get some pretty good evidence other than an actual body. It just needs to be figured out and I think it might be only a matter of time before it is.

[Guest]

ronn1 is guilty of nothing more than really considering what might be necessary for a species like what we think a bigfoot is to survive a harsh northern winter. At this point the discussion seems suited to a separate thread.

I grew up in the foothills of the Adirondacks in NY. It is an interesting question to consider how large mammals survive those winters, 'cause they can be really brutal and there really isn't that much to eat. Deer and moose (not that there are a lot of moose in the Adirondacks, but there appear to be some) survive harsh winters by eating lots of low quality vegetation (what, twigs for dinner again?), reducing energy expenditure as much as possible, and growing dense winter coats. Bears pile on huge amounts of fat, have dense coats, and go dormant for a few months to reduce energy expenditure.

What might bigfoots do? Well, they could pile on fat, go dormant, grow dense coats, eat a lot of low quality food, or eat a lot of high-quality food. Any and all of the previous would be possible; what ronn1 is caught on is that none of them seem at all likely given what we think we know about bigfoots right now. When you really start to visualize how any one of them might work, you quickly arrive at something untenable.

I've already addressed the problem with "caves", another popular one is that bigfoots simply turn their attention to running deer in the winter. That would solve the "food" problem of trying to figure out how bigfoots might process enough willow twigs to stay alive by providing them with a really nutritious, energy-rich food source in venison - and venison liver! But again, when you really start thinking about how many deer it might take to sustain a small family of bigfoots living, I don't know, just for the sake of argument at toejam's research site in Ontario, those numbers pile up. It sure wouldn't be easy for a bunch of bigfoots to keep their presence a secret if they're relying on hunting a deer every couple of days just to survive. Wolf hunts leave an awful lot of footprints in the snow; I imagine bigfoot hunts would too.

These kinds of speculative discussions don't mean that bigfoots can't have some whiz-bang mechanism for surviving harsh northern winters that we don't know about or can't figure out, but they never seem to be the tidy explanations that a lot of folks would like them to be. It's just another thing about bigfoot that doesn't mean there's no bigfoot, but it certainly doesn't help the case for bigfoot.

Thanks for the *clarification*. I'm pretty much done with this topic on the * cold climate* conundrum..unless, as you suggest...we want to start a separate thread on this topic. Post here if ya'll want to.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Researchers may need to reconsider how smart the animal that they look for is. If they do exist, then I think it's possible to get some pretty good evidence other than an actual body. It just needs to be figured out and I think it might be only a matter of time before it is.

I understand you are just throwing out an idea, but to suggest that researchers need to reconsider how smart the animal is, then state yourself, "if they do exist" is kinda funny, a guy like me could take that as, the researchers are searching for something that ain't there in the first place, now as far as a matter of time, researchers got all the time in the world, and they are fortunate for that cause they will need it if the past is any indication of what they will bring to the table the future.

Tim

[Guest]

<p><

This is an example of not engaging critical thinking. Unless that thinking is: watch what happens to this poor sucker who doesn't realize I have asked a totally inappropriate question. (You seem oddly compelled to get an irrelevant answer to this irrelevant question, which itself shows a failure to think critically about evidence.)

You may have a misunderstanding of what critical thinking is. Also, the question is highly relevant to the thread. (note the title is:

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

Asking for three pieces of evidence from folks that believe that the "evidence is there" is not irrelevant. It pertains to the subject matter, and gets to the focus of the real evidence. Lets look at the specific pieces of claimed evidence. If not, why not? (because most "believers" cannot even name 3 pieces they feel might be authentic, or that hasnt been analyzed to death already by "scientists") Apparently you believe science is not willing to take a look at the claimed evidence, yet you've been asked to specify three pieces that they should be looking at and each time you refuse to answer. I find that to be a void response, to a void issue. It is what it is, and opinions won't change what is there or not.

<p><

Doesn't matter how many elk prints are anywhere in that cast, if there are not four count 'em four in the places there must be for an elk to stand up from that spot. This is kind of elementary.

There are elk prints, leading up to, and away from the imprint. There are even four where it stood. (note that some have been obscured with boot tracks as well) Where are the bigfoot tracks or bigfoot evidence that leads you to believe a bigfoot was present there? Elk hairs all over the place. Elk tracks all over the place. Elk shaped impression in the mud.

What evidence of bigfoot is there at that location?

Give me three pieces of evidence that the proponents here are doing that. The wininternetargumenters, um, I mean the bigfoot skeptics, certainly appear to be. And I can cite at least three pieces of evidence for that opinion.

I could point out, this isnt about winning our losing for me. It's about "is there something out there". If you're taking an honest appraisal of what has been purported as bigfoot evidence, it should lead you to "it most likely doesn't exist" We can prove the source for much of the claimed evidence. Most proponents just don't like the answers or what it infers. The "mystery" of bigfoot is hardly a mystery. It appears to be more about marketing, pranks and things that go bump in the night, and good stories to pass along. We can prove this. Many, many times over. What can't be proven, is what the claimed source is. Seems obvious, yet some will refuse to acknowledge the source of purported evidence is overwhelmingly proven to be men.

Edited January 13, 2013 by LWD

[Guest DWA]

If you're taking an honest appraisal of what has been purported as bigfoot evidence, it should lead you to "it most likely doesn't exist" We can prove the source for much of the claimed evidence.

I answered everything else. But this shows you aren't reading up. Both sentences could not be more wrong.

[Guest]

I understand you are just throwing out an idea, but to suggest that researchers need to reconsider how smart the animal is, then state yourself, "if they do exist" is kinda funny, a guy like me could take that as, the researchers are searching for something that ain't there in the first place, now as far as a matter of time, researchers got all the time in the world, and they are fortunate for that cause they will need it if the past is any indication of what they will bring to the table the future.

Tim

I get a chuckle whenever the *how smart they are* mantra rears it's head. Sure..even chimps can perform *mental* tasks (I have seen them do it) that a human would find extremely challenging. They can perform recall tasks (for rewards) that would blow your mind! So the purported BF could indeed be capable of things like this as well. HOWEVER...I don't care how *smart* the purported BF are...>>>>>

They are simply a ZERO match when going up against a VASTLY SUPERIOR human CIVILIZATION that has NO EQUAL on earth as far as HUNTING prey..not to mention the techology that can be brought to bare. The fact these purported creatures have eluded man since the BEGINNING of their existance on earth up to modern times is simply not possible. So now we are seeing the recent debacles of those claiming to have a body go up in smoke.. Smeja...Daisy..and Dyer is next. I wonder why?

Yes.."researchers are searching for something that ain't there in the first place"....a notion that many will never except, since "we can't prove they don't exist*