Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[norseman]

i think the ancient coastline was wet montane forest correct?

If iam correct a possible scenario is that the steps giganto took to get here are under water now. hence why we do not find them in the fossil record.

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's part of it.  As I said earlier, at the geological moment, one can't go fossil hunting in much of Beringia. 

 

But environments in which sasquatch have been reported apparently existed all along the purported migration route.  So, that can't be used to discount the possiblilty.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Another explanation would be that it never really stepped foot into North America. If I'm not mistaken, Gigantopithecus was more like an orangutan than what is described as Sasquatch. Its large size and lack of fossils have paved a way for Bigfooters to somehow make a connection to Bigfoot. 

[southernyahoo]

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

This actually is science, running the way it's been running forever.  The time we're taking to prove bigfoot isn't out of line at all.

 

This ain't a "this time."

 

 

Those five hands that bipto cut off and photographed.  Remember those?

 

They're seeing them; they're hearing them; they're reporting things that are in consonance with my read of the evidence - a lot of evidence - and pretty much what we'd expect for the kind of animals they likely are (apes).

 

Unless, you know, you're telling me they're liars.

 

 

I've heard nothing of that. Where is the evidence for review?

 

Operation Persistence thread.  I will trust you knew that the hands part was pulling your chain.

 

Any negative comments would have to come with an explanation why I should mistrust what they're saying, given no good reason (unless of course there is one).

 

I highly suspected you were pulling my chain yes, unless you were tuned into their Bat channel or something this year.......

 

I don't necessarily doubt they have something going on there, I doubt their interpretations of the activity being exclusive of   bigfoot being a sentient speaking member of genus homo. I want to hear their audio, If they dare to share it. They are in a place they think excludes other humans present, so if they get some of that chatter or speech, what shall they do??

[Guest DWA]

^^^I consider that last question highly up to them.

 

If one of these guys walks up to the cabin and conveys the message, look, we're human, we're tired of being "nonexistent," but here's the deal we want to reveal ourselves to your star-maker machinery....well, I expect bipto to come clean and say, hey, more going on here than apes, I was wrong, what can I say?

 

I haven't heard chatter in the audio they've released.  Rock tossing and wood-knocking are it to my knowledge (although actually one clip might have had bipedal footsteps).

[Guest]

I apologize for my lack of knowledge of felines, but how closely related are Siberian Tigers to their jungle counterparts?

Great example, and I love the photo!  I worked at a zoo when I was a youngster and the Siberian (now usually called "Amur") Tigers were our star attractors, especially in the snow.

 

Yes, tigers are all closely related.  They and leopards provide excellent examples of species that have dispersed to far-flung regions across Asia and adapted to make use of lots of different habitats, from the steamiest jungles of Sumatra to the frozen forests of Siberia.  We humans with our penchant for classifying things have even judged some of those locally adapted variants to represent unique species.

 

Note, however, that neither tigers nor leopards made that jump to colonizing the tundra, and neither of them made it through Beringia to North America. 

 

 

As for vegetation cover of Beringia during the period of faunal exchange:  "While the majority of arctic lands around the globe were covered with thick glaciers, most of Beringia was a cold, dry ice-free steppe environment much like modern Siberia."  Source.  Some authorities suggest it was more of a willow scrub than grassy tundra, but we can't pretend there was "Gigantopithecus habitat" there unless we pretend that Giganto was vastly more plastic in its needs than any of our current information of the genus suggests.

 

Just to fuel the fire, I'll suggest that a more likely candidate for dispersal through Beringia would be something that we know would be able to survive in a myriad habitats so long as there were other animals it could hunt down and eat. So-called Meganthropus is the subject of no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists, but as far as I can tell, it would be about the same stretch of fossil gap time if we consider this taxon dispersing through Beringia as it would for Giganto.  It's not clear to me that Meganthropus was anything other than Homo erectus, or even that it was especially large.  At the very least, however, it used tools and ate animals so that makes it a better candidate than Giganto for a dispersal through Beringia.

[Guest]

DWA,

I find it interesting discussing the issues with enthusiasts like yourself. What do we bring to the table, doubter and enthusiast? What unsaid suppositions, what particular slants are buried in our discussion that inhibit understanding?

Here is my starting position on the Bigfoot question, a position I imagine is unlike your own. When I read enthusiasts enthuse about Bigfoot evidence, it seems to me that the argument is made this way: The question of Bigfoot's existence begins on a level playing field. Whenever we have a sighting report or a track find, the playing field is tilted in favor of Bigfoot's existence. The skeptic needs to counter this advantage by counter-evidence that disproves the pro-evidence individually. *** for tat. If this counter-evidence is not forthcoming, then the playing field is no longer level and is leaning in favor of Bigfoot's existence.

I see it differently. The playing field is not level, even at the beginning of the debate. It is tilted decidedly on the side of doubt and skepticism. Why? The enthusiast ignores the fact that in very real terms, not hypothetical, not in principle, but in real terms, no Bigfoot is known to exist. By known I mean demonstrable existence. The enthusiast does not have a neutral setting where his evidence tilts favorably for existence, but instead faces the hard fact that he must weigh his circumstantial evidence against the undeniable fact that no Bigfoot is known to exist.

This is not trivial, nor is it question begging. The enthusiast's struggle is uphill all the way. You may read and believe every sightings report, marvel over interesting trackways, studiously read Meldrum, and the like. But you do not have the fact of Bigfoot.

To make my position clear. I am not saying it is known that Bigfoot does not exist or that it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I am saying that no Bigfoot is known to exist. There is a distinction here. It relates to how strong the evidence must be in order to overtake the fact that no Bigfoot is known to exist.

The evidence put forth to date is circumstantial. It is not all-compelling because in every instance, without exception, it may be interpreted as of human origin. Every sighting, every trackway, every sound recording, etc., can not be dismissed with any certainty from the theoretical possibility of human manufacture, made either in innocence or otherwise. To argue otherwise is, to my mind, just an exercise in belief and faith. (The only exception would be DNA findings, but to date nothing conclusive has been ascertained.)

You may and probably do disagree with me on this. That is OK, of course. My goal is to share with you what is mostly unspoken, in this case the starting point of the debate over evidence from the perspective of doubt. This is why it is "obvious" (as you put it) to some that the evidence for Bigfoot does not overturn the most salient fact of all: there is no Bigfoot whose existence has been demonstrated.

Of course, tomorrow may bring forth definitive evidence (or 'proof." as you would call it) of Bigfoot. The issue would be settled. But it seems to me, short of definitive evidence, you and other enthusiasts have put yourself in a box of your own making. Suppose skeptics are correct to suspect the evidence for Bigfoot because the animal does not really exist. If there is no Bigfoot, you have committed yourself to virtual belief based on the evidence we have now. That evidence, if skeptics are correct, would be the same even if Bigfoot does not exist. But you, and others, would never know that the object of your interest/obsession is not there. That is why I say the Bigfoot problem is not open to solution. You will never see its non-existence.

Edited June 14, 2013 by jerrywayne

[Guest DWA]

DWA,

I find it interesting discussing the issues with enthusiasts like yourself. What do we bring to the table, doubter and enthusiast? What unsaid suppositions, what particular slants are buried in our discussion that inhibit understanding?

Here is my starting position on the Bigfoot question, a position I imagine is unlike your own. When I read enthusiasts enthuse about Bigfoot evidence, it seems to me that the argument is made this way: The question of Bigfoot's existence begins on a level playing field. Whenever we have a sighting report or a track find, the playing field is tilted in favor of Bigfoot's existence. The skeptic needs to counter this advantage by counter-evidence that disproves the pro-evidence individually. *** for tat. If this counter-evidence is not forthcoming, then the playing field is no longer level and is leaning in favor of Bigfoot's existence.

 

 

Yes, that's the way science works.  Evidence in favor raises the proposition of existence, which must be tested.  This evidence is voluminous, consistent, and paints a biologically-plausible picture immediately apparent to a scientist paying attention.  I pay attention to those scientists.  They usually know where the gold is buried.

 

 

I see it differently. The playing field is not level, even at the beginning of the debate. It is tilted decidedly on the side of doubt and skepticism. Why? The enthusiast ignores the fact that in very real terms, not hypothetical, not in principle, but in real terms, no Bigfoot is known to exist. By known I mean demonstrable existence. The enthusiast does not have a neutral setting where his evidence tilts favorably for existence, but instead faces the hard fact that he must weigh his circumstantial evidence against the undeniable fact that no Bigfoot is known to exist.

 

No proof is an irrelevant state of affairs.  Everything we know about existed long before it was proven.  If sasquatch is real, it's as real as any of us, right now.  Science never presumes something not to exist.  Ever.  Never will.

 

 

This is not trivial, nor is it question begging. The enthusiast's struggle is uphill all the way. You may read and believe every sightings report, marvel over interesting trackways, studiously read Meldrum, and the like. But you do not have the fact of Bigfoot.

 

 

No struggle going on here.  If a murder rule operated in this game the existence of the animal would be presumed.  Fortunately for science, what people think doesn't matter, only what's real and what isn't.

 

 

To make my position clear. I am not saying it is known that Bigfoot does not exist or that it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I am saying that no Bigfoot is known to exist. There is a distinction here. It relates to how strong the evidence must be in order to overtake the fact that no Bigfoot is known to exist.

 

If Bigfoot's real, it's real.  The state of the evidence is a human perspective and irrelevant.  Is the animal real, or is it not?  "Do we recognize it or do we not?" is a cool question, but in the cosmic sense, immaterial.

The evidence put forth to date is circumstantial. It is not all-compelling because in every instance, without exception, it may be interpreted as of human origin. Every sighting, every trackway, every sound recording, etc., can not be dismissed with any certainty from the theoretical possibility of human manufacture, made either in innocence or otherwise. To argue otherwise is, to my mind, just an exercise in belief and faith. (The only exception would be DNA findings, but to date nothing conclusive has been ascertained.)

 

 

But it can't be dismissed with any certainty from being theoretically possible as evidence of an unlisted animal, either.  To us, it's uncertain.  But the animal is either real or not.

 

 

You may and probably do disagree with me on this. That is OK, of course. My goal is to share with you what is mostly unspoken, in this case the starting point of the debate over evidence from the perspective of doubt. This is why it is "obvious" (as you put it) to some that the evidence for Bigfoot does not overturn the most salient fact of all: there is no Bigfoot whose existence has been demonstrated.

 

Evidence overturns nothing until proof is obtained.  But science doesn't shy away from proof; it seeks it.  Scientists, on the other hand, are people, and make (many many) mistakes.

Of course, tomorrow may bring forth definitive evidence (or 'proof." as you would call it) of Bigfoot. The issue would be settled. But it seems to me, short of definitive evidence, you and other enthusiasts have put yourself in a box of your own making. Suppose skeptics are correct to suspect the evidence for Bigfoot because the animal does not really exist. If there is no Bigfoot, you have committed yourself to virtual belief based on the evidence we have now. That evidence, if skeptics are correct, would be the same even if Bigfoot does not exist. But you, and others, would never know that the object of your interest/obsession is not there. That is why I say the Bigfoot problem is not open to solution. You will never see its non-existence.

 

Same goes for skeptics.  Only I know which box I'd rather be in.  I'm not "stuck" in mine, because ...possibility isn't a box.

Edited June 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

^Have you seen a bigfoot?

[Guest DWA]

No.

 

Relevant how?  This it-can't-be-real-unless-I've-seen-one thing can be a real mind constrictor.

[southernyahoo]

^^^I consider that last question highly up to them.

 

If one of these guys walks up to the cabin and conveys the message, look, we're human, we're tired of being "nonexistent," but here's the deal we want to reveal ourselves to your star-maker machinery....well, I expect bipto to come clean and say, hey, more going on here than apes, I was wrong, what can I say?

 

I haven't heard chatter in the audio they've released.  Rock tossing and wood-knocking are it to my knowledge (although actually one clip might have had bipedal footsteps).

 

I would expect them to come clean as well, They did capture the one set of vocals that I hear as a repeated vocalization and what sounds like "back away" at the end. I wasn't the only one that heard that either. Rock tossing and wood knocking are well within any apes or human's behavior, so I don't see it as precluding a member of genus homo doing that. In fact the knocking seems like a premeditated method of communication which  invloves abstract thought processes (planning)  

 

Bipedal footsteps, my group has that in spades, along with woodknocks, whoops and howls all in one nights work. 

 

Back to my point, it does not take a month to get that. Getting visuals of them might take longer, but with no video or photos, it's still the same boat of evidence.

[Guest]

No.

 

Relevant how?  This it-can't-be-real-unless-I've-seen-one thing can be a real mind constrictor.

 

IMO--There is no such thing as Bigfoot....it is a myth. I think the PGF is a hoax. I'd say most eye witness accounts are bunk and the rest are mistaken identity. But you gotta love cupcakes.

Edited June 15, 2013 by AaronD
to bring to compliance

[Guest DWA]

Keep on sayin' it until you believe it.  I'm sure not gonna convince you otherwise.

[Cotter]

@sask:

 

Thx for the response, I for one appreciate the knowledge you bring to the discussions.

 

I do find it interesting that tigers didn't make it this way.  I wonder how sabre tooths work into the mix.

[Drew]

There are no Gigantopithecus fossils north of China.

 

Plenty of fossil sites, but no Gigantopithecus.