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

[Guest]

^^ Cool ,thanks for sharing that.

Homo heidelbergensis does not fit with Sasquatch morphology very well at all. They were not terribly hairy and the upward height is figured to have been around 5.9" That's not very squatchy at all. Maybe some other extant hominid is more likely, like the oft mentioned G.Blacki. But Homo heidelbergensis? Doesn't fit with what most people say when they describe BF. But maybe yours was a juvenille or something, who knows? Not trying to knock your sighting, just saying that Homo heidelbergensis seems an unlikely prospect for a Sasquatch.

Oh, I might be mistaken. There seems to be some evidence, or thought, that there were some that were over 7ft tall in South Africa.

I would like to know how "they" know that Homo heidelbergensis wasn't hairy? I am not being sarcastic, I would like to know how that is known.

Thanks,

[Guest SDjeepr]

In response to the many theorists of the 'suit hoax', I'm not saying it doesn't happen; it's fresh on YT everyday. But I don't think that most wilderness sightings are a suithoaxer, especially not during hunting season. I live in the Plains, and most rural folks out here go strapped, like most other rural areas. You couldn't pay me enough to run around in a fur suit. Anyone doing that runs a serious risk of personal injury.

I personally do not carry my gun in the wilderness, as I usually have my pb dog with. But many do go armed, and some shoot at anything.

I am personally of the opinion that wearing a fur suit to scare folks could be somewhat fatal. Just sayin...

As far as evidence goes, there's plenty of it. Most people set their standards a little too high, and are not willing to accept what there is. I've never seen one full on, but a turd on a trail in Oregon (John Boyle Res, west side of bridge, trail going south along water. West of Keno, Klamath or maybe Jackson County, not sure) was what drove it home for me. Huge, human shaped deuce, had various manner of organic stuff- seeds, hair, crawdad shell pieces (I think), ect. At that moment, for me, a long time of wondering about certain things just kind of culminated. And at that moment, I knew.

[norseman]

No True Scotsmen:

Finding Bigfoot is not really looking for bigfoot.

TBRC is not really looking for bigfoot.

Jeff Meldrum is not really looking for bigfoot.

Rene Dahinden was not really looking for bigfoot.

Bryan Sykes is not really looking for bigfoot.

etc.

The one that makes the least sense to me, however, is this idea that because scientists are allegedly "hostile" to bigfoot that prevents non-scientists from finding a piece of one.

"Why has bigfoot not been collected yet?"

"Because scientists are mean to us!"

non sequitur

Huh?

A Squatch hasn't been collected yet because 99% of the people out "looking" are not into "collecting" one.

We have light years difference between the philosophy of looking for one and collecting one. But we have PLENTY of foot casts, hair samples, photos, video and DNA studies.But very few seem to grasp what science is asking of them.

But to be fair, it certainly isn't easy trying to explain away how it is that Squatch has remained elusive all of this years. American Indians did/do not seem very interested in trying to collect one. But early pioneers certainly didn't have a problem shooting every thing else to near extinction. So either the creature doesn't exist or the creature is a very special animal........which by reports we know this. Rare, smart, elusive and nocturnal? It's not probable but it's not impossible either. There certainly are some reports that are very compelling, and this is why I just cannot take every report at face value.

Anyhow, we need a better understanding on how best to COLLECT one...........not look, but collect.

[Guest]

All science is saying..we classify all animals in the same way and any purported BF is no exception in reaching the status on taxonomy.

[norseman]

All science is saying..we classify all animals in the same way and any purported BF is no exception in reaching the status on taxonomy.

Right. But the road blocks I'm hitting is that:

A) People find this scientific method archaic, and simply will not attempt to collect one because it is barbaric.

B )Many people do not think this is an ape........they think it's a family member of the genus Homo. There fore what science is suggesting is murder, unless somebody stumbles upon a body in the woods. And even then........do you dissect it or bury it with a head stone with religious ceremony?

C) People are AFRAID, a prominent Bigfooter in one of his videos claims that if he took a SEAL team in with him with the mission objective of collecting a type specimen? None of them what emerge from the wilderness ALIVE.

I find all of this very very very frustrating........

Edited February 2, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

@cat . I don't see much that references body hair specifically in the texts, but any image I have ever seen of Homo heidelbergensis never shows more body hair than a normally hairy human male. The face seems to sometimes be depicted with more hair than we would think normal for us, but the body is almost always drawn with little hair, certainly not enough to act as an effective winter coat for areas with temps far, far below zero. But more importantly, Homo heidelbergensis was an adept tool maker and user. I have never heard anything to suggest that Sasquatch uses tools.

Edited February 2, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

@cat . I don't see much that references body hair specifically in the texts, but any image I have ever seen of Homo heidelbergensis never shows more body hair than a normally hairy human male. The face seems to sometimes be depicted with more hair than we would think normal for us, but the body is almost always drawn with little hair, certainly not enough to act as an effective winter coat for areas with temps far, far below zero. But more importantly, Homo heidelbergensis was an adept tool maker and user. I have never heard anything to suggest that Sasquatch uses tools.

@ noresman..... "C) People are AFRAID, xxxxxxxx in one of his videos claims that if he took a SEAL team in with him with the mission objective of collecting a type specimen? None of them what emerge from the wilderness ALIVE"

Do you believe this? I find this, like most of xxxxxxx claims, to be absurdly outrageous. A trained SEAL team could not stand up to rock throwing and wood knocks? Please...

If you could, could you go into your post and edit out the name? I shouldn't have posted that. Thanks.

And see my new thread in General discussion, ummmm no.

[dmaker]

^^ Sure, np. I saw your new thread too late. I have completely removed my response to you from my post.

[norseman]

^^ Sure, np. I saw your new thread too late. I have completely removed my response to you from my post.

Thanks bro!

[dmaker]

^^ you're welcome

[Guest]

@cat . I don't see much that references body hair specifically in the texts, but any image I have ever seen of Homo heidelbergensis never shows more body hair than a normally hairy human male. The face seems to sometimes be depicted with more hair than we would think normal for us, but the body is almost always drawn with little hair, certainly not enough to act as an effective winter coat for areas with temps far, far below zero. But more importantly, Homo heidelbergensis was an adept tool maker and user. I have never heard anything to suggest that Sasquatch uses tools.

I don't have anything to say about sasquatch. I was just asking about Homo heidelbergensis and how anyone knows about how much hair they had. does anything show how much hair any fossil remains had. "they" are just now saying that "they" now think that some dinosaurs had feathers.

Edited February 2, 2013 by catt.thre

[norseman]

I don't have anything to say about sasquatch. I was just asking about Homo heidelbergensis and how anyone knows about how much hair they had. does anything show how much hair any fossil remains had. "they" are just now saying that "they" now think that some dinosaurs had feathers.

That's because they found evidence of feathers in fossils:

http://blog.webosaurs.com/2009/07/15/daily-dino-fact-feathered-dinosaurs/

[Guest]

I don't have anything to say about sasquatch. I was just asking about Homo heidelbergensis and how anyone knows about how much hair they had. does anything show how much hair any fossil remains had. "they" are just now saying that "they" now think that some dinosaurs had feathers.

On this forum how do you just reply to a post? I haven't figured out how to do that. I do not see a reply button. if anyone can tell me I will appreciate it.

Edited February 2, 2013 by catt.thre

[norseman]

On this forum how do you just reply to a post? I haven't figured out how to do that. I do not see a reply button. if anyone can tell me I will appreciate it.

Either hit the quote button. (lower right corner)

Or scroll down to the quick reply box, or top right hand corner hit the reply to topic button.

[dmaker]

I don't have anything to say about sasquatch. I was just asking about Homo heidelbergensis and how anyone knows about how much hair they had. does anything show how much hair any fossil remains had. "they" are just now saying that "they" now think that some dinosaurs had feathers.

You could be completely correct. I have only ever seen a depiction with little hair, but maybe we don't know.