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

[Guest thermalman]

Nondescript.

[Oonjerah]

I am only repeating the sensible stance of Dr. Grover Krantz, one more time.

To all you woodsmen who hike the forests more than 100 miles per year ...

How many times have you found bear remains ... or deer, for that matter?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

I am only repeating the sensible stance of Dr. Grover Krantz, one more time.

To all you woodsmen who hike the forests more than 100 miles per year ...

How many times have you found bear remains ... or deer, for that matter?

There ya go!

[Guest]

All discovered during a time when an agrarian population was expanding rapidly.

This expansion into new areas would and did bring people, (heavily dependent on natural resources) into contact and conflict with numerous new to them creatures.

Except one, if there was ever a time when you would think a body would have been harvested it would have been that time period.

Some people may be hesitant to shoot something that looks so human. Most of the pre-1950s news reports of what appear to be bigfoot sightings are sightings of a "wild man." And even if a body was "harvested," there are many reasons why the body might not have been taken to someone trained to write up a scientific description.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^^

Yes thanks for stating the obvious!

[Guest]

People back in the pioneer days were willing to shot Indians. I don't think a "wildman" with be a problem.

[Rockape]

There are numerous stories of BF being shot by early settlers. They weren't the type to worry about saving the body for science.

And as for none being in the fossil record, there could be fossil evidence sitting in a Univeristy somewhere that was mis-cataloged, or simple forgotten about.

[Guest]

And yet every other large mammal was catalogued for classification.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Crittergetter]

And yet every other large mammal was catalogued for classification.

Well, no, that isn't exactly accurate. We certainly have a lot of them, but there isn't really any way to prove that we have all of them, which is really what folks like Rockape are trying to get at here.

Saying we've got so many samples and specimens of large mammals that we simply must have all of them by now, is not a scientific statement. Saying that we have catalogued a great deal of large mammals in North America is accurate, however the original statement reached a conclusion that is unsupported and in fact directly contradicts the vast amount of circumstantial evidence that we currently have at our disposal. What you have does not prove what you don't, if you get my meaning.

As far as to why we don't have it(starting from a position of it existing), I can think of several possible scenarios in which a specimen is shot dead, but not gathered. Perhaps it is shot, but is far too heavy to move any great distance. After all, a fully grown Sasquatch must weigh in the neighborhood of 600-900 pounds. More then that, its height and breadth are also something to take into account. Sure, we could move something like that out of the forest these days, but a lone hunter in Oklahoma, in the 1880's? Not likely.

Even assuming he could, where would he take it? Back to his home? For what? I'm pretty sure people would be rather hesitant to cut it up for its meat, or even skin it for its hide because of how human it is supposed to look. By the time you could get something like that to a laboratory for a scientist to examine, it would have rotted pretty thoroughly anyway.

On top of it, there's also the possibility that it traveled in a family group. A scenario in which a family of Sasquatch would defend itself from the strange small figure with a noisemaker is not beyond possibility, especially since such things are not unheard of in reports. Even if the family didn't kill the man after he shot one of them, they could at least scare him the hell out of there. Rock throwing and shouts would probably have been enough.

Did it happen? I have no idea. Is it feasible, arguing from the position of the creature's existence? Yes, absolutely.

Of course, arguing from the position that the creature does not exist, it's all nonsense anyway. Why listen to what I have to say?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Crittergetter

[Guest BFSleuth]

And yet every other large mammal was catalogued for classification.

Do tell us the date when this happened and how it was determined that there were no more large mammals to be classified.

[Guest]

Yes. Every other known mammal was catalogued. Who knows how many fossil fregments were disposed of or disregarded because they could not be identified, were misidentified, or simply didn't make sense to the person inspecting them. DNA analysis and carbon dating are relatively recent tools considering how long we have been trying to piece together the mysteries of our past. Don't rule out human error, or even vanity and ego as reasons this may have happened. I'm sure there have been career driven decisions to disregard things that could not be identified, rather than someone admitting that they could not identify something. Saying that every sighting ever reported was a fabrication, misidentification, or a hallucination seems more far fetched than an unrecognized species roaming the wilds. Look at how many new species are discovered every single year,

[Guest]

Do tell us the date when this happened and how it was determined that there were no more large mammals to be classified.

I'm re-post my 1307 post.

Saskeptic is on to something when he says sasquatch is on borrowed time. Here are the classification credits and dates for the other large NA animals since the Linnean classification system was etablished.

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

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Schreber, 1777

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Kerr, 1792

Cougar (Puma concolor), Linnaeus, 1771

American black bear (Ursus americanus) Pallas, 1780

I forgot to add in Coyote (Canis latrans) Say, 1823 and by "animals" I meant mammals.

Yes. Every other known mammal was catalogued. Who knows how many fossil fregments were disposed of or disregarded because they could not be identified, were misidentified, or simply didn't make sense to the person inspecting them.

I'm not talking about fossils, I'm talking about specimens.

[Guest thermalman]

And yet every other large mammal was catalogued for classification.

Since what date?

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1003-hance-newmammals-peru.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/13/new-mammals-discovered-10-years

http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/about.cfm

And did you know that Canada has 981.7 million acres of forested land, representing 53% of it's total land area of 1.8 billion acres! With a population of 35M, that equals 0.019 people per acre. That's leaves a lot of hiding area for a small population of any species.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/statistics-facts/forests/897

Btw, I like to deal with FACTS!

Edited December 9, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Since what date?

http://news.mongabay...mmals-peru.html

Again, where're talking about large North American mammals and the Westward expansion era.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

A couple of thoughts,

1) I've seen a sighting pattern that correlated with rain fall.........

If the bigfoot data in your sample come from something like sightings reports in the BFRO database, then it would be impossible to fail to get a correlation. You'd see a similar correlation with rainfall and porcupines, red-backed salamanders, and black-throated gray warblers: rainfall correlates with trees, so species that occur in forests - including mythical species generally associated with forests - will correlate with rainfall.

2) The whole fossil evidence collection for human ancestors wouldn't take up the back of a pickup truck. In other words considering that there are six billion humans on the earth, we have a rather sparse fossil record of our own evolution.

Point 1: We can cherry pick a species for which the fossil record is poor and try to make the connection that the fossil record for bigfoot would be poorer still. I prefer to think about it more objectively and consider contemporaries of bigfoots in time and space that might have occurred in similar population densities and been about the same size. When I do that, the giant short-faced bear pops out as an excellent proxy. We have fossils of short-faced bears from more than 100 different locations in North America.

Open and shut? No. Damning? Heck yeah.

Point 2. While the fossil record of humans might be small in terms of its total biomass (geo-mass?), the archaeological record of humans is enormous. Bigfoot is supposed to still be here. Thus it's not just its absense from the fossil record that is a serious problem for bigfooters, its also the absence of bigfoot material in more recent strata. For example, there are no bigfoot teeth on some brave's ceremonial regalia, no bigfoot scalp among the vast amount of Native American, First Nations, or any other aboriginal people's artifacts. That alone is an enormous gaping hole in bigfootery.

Might some cultures have had taboos about trading in bigfoot artifacts? Maybe, but I'd bet there's be others for whom such items would've been highly prized and briskly traded.

Remember, the first people to colonize North America seem to have hunted mammoths to extinction using Stone Age technology. Bagging a bigfoot is a walk in the park to people who eat elephants by hunting them at arm's reach.