Jump to content

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.


Recommended Posts

dmaker

And you are missing my point, there is a fossil record of 800lb apes. Bigfoot is purportedly an 800lb ape. Therefore there is a fossil record that may link to Bigfoot. Sooooo perhaps there are precisely zero species of 800lb animals running around with no fossil records. And I fully expect you to twist this to try and prove your point, but whatever.

 

As to the scientists, your arrogance is still shocking and amazes me. As long as you think something is pointless, then by definition it's pointless? l'm not even going to argue anymore. Adios.

 

I never said there were not fossil records of 800 lb apes. Yes, I understand we have a jaw bone fragment of G.Blacki. My question was in North America are there any fossil records of 800 lb apes?  The G.Blacki fragment places the extinct ape in Asia, not North America.  There is zero evidence of it making it's way to North America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Those things you mentioned, Bigfoothunter, have more scientific validity ( IMO) than does Bigfoot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I think most of the interesting or valuable science that can be done around Bigfoot does not involve the biology of a creature that all attempts to date have failed to produce one shred of proof, but rather in the psychology and social phenomena behind the myth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

You said how many 800lb animals are running around without a fossil record. I pointed out out there is, in fact, a fossil record for 800lb apes.  Extant is a another topic altogether. If you're willing to tell eyewitnesses what they saw without standing beside them(per your conversation with LarryP in a different thread), then there is no hope talking about it.

 

 The fact is, there are scientists, real scientists, studying bigfoot. Anthropologists, biologists etc. You say there are a tiny number, as if that dismisses them from the conversation. I'd like to know your magic number of scientists that suddenly gives a field credibility, not how many you think are needed. 

 

Your logic, we don't need no stinking scientists to look into Bigfoot because I don't think they exist, kind of takes the exploration out of science, no? How many discoveries would not have been made if armchair critics like you were running the show? 

Again, you are missing my meaning. I said how many 800lb animals are running around our forests and backyards ( based on the accounts) without a fossil record? Now it seems pretty obvious that extant is implied since extinct creatures are not able to run anywhere. 

 

I am not trying to take the exploration out of science. But I do think science should avoid the pointless.

 

And Bigfoot is pointless. There is no compelling reason to spend time and money on that when it could be better spent elsewhere. 

 

 

 

Does your logic also apply to discussing the pointless on Discussion Forums, dmaker?? :)

 

 

 

But I do think science should avoid the pointless.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, dmaker....'science' is done by scientists...who decide for themselves what they should, and should not research/study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd plus you Sweaty, but my one and only is gone. I've always liked the quote that is your sig. Einstein was one of a kind, and his way of looking at the world fascinates me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

 

You said how many 800lb animals are running around without a fossil record. I pointed out out there is, in fact, a fossil record for 800lb apes.  Extant is a another topic altogether. If you're willing to tell eyewitnesses what they saw without standing beside them(per your conversation with LarryP in a different thread), then there is no hope talking about it.

 

 The fact is, there are scientists, real scientists, studying bigfoot. Anthropologists, biologists etc. You say there are a tiny number, as if that dismisses them from the conversation. I'd like to know your magic number of scientists that suddenly gives a field credibility, not how many you think are needed. 

 

Your logic, we don't need no stinking scientists to look into Bigfoot because I don't think they exist, kind of takes the exploration out of science, no? How many discoveries would not have been made if armchair critics like you were running the show? 

Again, you are missing my meaning. I said how many 800lb animals are running around our forests and backyards ( based on the accounts) without a fossil record? Now it seems pretty obvious that extant is implied since extinct creatures are not able to run anywhere. 

 

I am not trying to take the exploration out of science. But I do think science should avoid the pointless.

 

And Bigfoot is pointless. There is no compelling reason to spend time and money on that when it could be better spent elsewhere. 

 

 

 

Does your logic also apply to discussing the pointless on Discussion Forums, dmaker?? :)

 

 

 

But I do think science should avoid the pointless.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, dmaker....'science' is done by scientists...who decide for themselves what they should, and should not research/study.

 

 

Well Sweaty, I actually find the behaviour of BF believers and enthusiasts to be pretty entertaining. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of the interesting or valuable science that can be done around Bigfoot does not involve the biology of a creature that all attempts to date have failed to produce one shred of proof, but rather in the psychology and social phenomena behind the myth.

 

That about sums it up!

 

My first degree was in physical anthropology, and back then I was a believer. Of course I was all over the Gigantopithecus thing, but back then there was only fossil teeth and maybe a few pieces of jaw, it was speculation at that point that Giganto was even bipedal, I think the idea was based on how the skull would sit on the spine, it may be different now. But the point is, Gigantopithecus has been extinct for over half a million years, and they still found evidence, one would think a current species would be much easier to find in the fossil record, especially in areas unaffected by glaciation. Anyway, when I think back on what people must have thought of my ideas back then! :( Oh well, there was no work in that field, so I went back and did a geomatics degree. We do a lot of remote sensing and LiDAR imaging, and in my early days, I flew all over NA collecting remote sensing data with all kinds of sensors, it didn't take me long to realize that there was no way BF could thrive and remain hidden, anywhere in the eastern part of the continent, just from looking out the window! But hey, I suppose ex BF believers are as annoying it gets around here. Especially since most know deep down that BF is just a myth...they just don't want to accept it. Just sayn'!

Edited by summitwalker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I'd plus you Sweaty, but my one and only is gone. I've always liked the quote that is your sig. Einstein was one of a kind, and his way of looking at the world fascinates me.  

 

 

Thanks, stinky... :)  That is a great statement....from a great mind. 

 

I've always been fascinated by Einstein, too....over the years, I've done some reading on his Theories of Relativity. It took some serious 'thinking outside the box' for him to determine that 'time' and 'space' are relative concepts.....not absolutes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

But the point is, Gigantopithecus has been extinct for over half a million years, and they still found evidence, one would think a current species would be much easier to find in the fossil record, especially in areas unaffected by glaciation.

 

 

 

Not  necessarily...

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7917-first-convincing-chimp-fossil-discovered.html

 

 

 

But hey, I suppose ex BF believers are as annoying it gets around here.

 

 

 

Would it be o.k. if I decide to just be a 'Bigfoot Wonderer', summitwalker?! :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 But the point is, Gigantopithecus has been extinct for over half a million years, and they still found evidence, one would think a current species would be much easier to find in the fossil record, especially in areas unaffected by glaciation.

 

So you are another one who wants to debunk the existence of the Sasquatch by making post that do not have their facts straight.

 

Gigantopithecus (from the Ancient Greek γίγας gigas "giant", and πίθηκος pithekos "ape") is an extinct genus of ape that existed from roughly nine million years to as recently as one hundred thousand years ago,[1] in what is now China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as several hominin species.[2] The fossil record suggests that individuals of the species Gigantopithecus blacki were the largest apes that ever lived, standing up to 3 m (9.8 ft), and weighing up to 540 kg (1,200 lb).[1][3][4]

 

 

And about that fossil record you butchered the facts on ... Are you suggesting that someone went looking for gigantopithecus fossils and found them? My understanding is that they were found by accident. And that some were fossil dated two hundred thousand years between each other. I think to date so far that there are only four or five lower jawbones that have been found and those were found over an area that spanned several thousand miles. So why were only so few gigantopithecus fossils found in those areas?

 

And hypothetically if one fossil was found and dated back to 500,000 years, then anyone thinking that was when they went extinct have been proven wrong when another one dating back only 200,000 years was found later on. And when another is found and it dates back 100,000 years, then anyone claiming they went extinct 200,000 was obviously wrong as well. The point being is that no one is really looking for these fossils ... they are happened upon. So how many fossils digs go on in the PNW ... can we say far less than what goes on in other parts of the world where gigantopithecus fossils have been found? So for an animal that may have lived more than nine million years ago ... why then have so few fossils been found to date when the species thrived for so long? And how does that justify someone thinking that there should be fossils laying all over the place if the species is still alive ... after all there have been only a grand total of 4 to 5 jawbone fossils ever found! If I apply the lack of sound reasoning that I believe you demonstrated, then one could say that only 5 gigantopithecus ever lived ... some 100s of thousands of years apart from the next one and that's just plain whacked!!!

 

Based on what little has been found of gigantopithecus' fossils, I find it improper to say with any certainty that the species went extinct when such an animal fitting their description is still being reported to be seen

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

 

I am not trying to take the exploration out of science. But I do think science should avoid the pointless.

 

And Bigfoot is pointless. There is no compelling reason to spend time and money on that when it could be better spent elsewhere. 

 

 

 

Does your logic also apply to discussing the pointless on Discussion Forums, dmaker?? :)

 

 

 

 

 

Well Sweaty, I actually find the behaviour of BF believers and enthusiasts to be pretty entertaining. 

 

 

 

So....by your logic....it's good to spend your time on Bigfoot Discussion Forums, discussing "the pointless".....but it isn't okay for Bigfoot enthusiasts/proponents to spend their time researching/discussing "the pointless"???

 

The "pointless" subject of Bigfoot is for skeptics only???????? :wacko:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Not at all Sweaty, I'm saying science should not get too excited about it. People can, and will, discuss it forever and ever most likely, just like ghosts and boogeymen and every other myth. But from a Scientific point of view ( at least one dealing with Bigfoot as a live animal to study) Bigfoot is pointless and a waste of resources. My opinion, of course, YMMV.

 

I do find your declaration to be considered a "Bigfoot wonderer" a bit perplexing. Is that not at odds with the veracity with which you insist that Patty is real? Patty cannot be real is Bigfoot is not real.  If you merely "wonder" about Bigfoot, then why is your name synonymous with PGF Apologist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

 But the point is, Gigantopithecus has been extinct for over half a million years, and they still found evidence, one would think a current species would be much easier to find in the fossil record, especially in areas unaffected by glaciation.

 

So you are another one who wants to debunk the existence of the Sasquatch by making post that do not have their facts straight.

 

Gigantopithecus (from the Ancient Greek γίγας gigas "giant", and πίθηκος pithekos "ape") is an extinct genus of ape that existed from roughly nine million years to as recently as one hundred thousand years ago,[1] in what is now China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as several hominin species.[2] The fossil record suggests that individuals of the species Gigantopithecus blacki were the largest apes that ever lived, standing up to 3 m (9.8 ft), and weighing up to 540 kg (1,200 lb).[1][3][4]

 

 

And about that fossil record you butchered the facts on ... Are you suggesting that someone went looking for gigantopithecus fossils and found them? My understanding is that they were found by accident. And that some were fossil dated two hundred thousand years between each other. I think to date so far that there are only four or five lower jawbones that have been found and those were found over an area that spanned several thousand miles. So why were only so few gigantopithecus fossils found in those areas?

 

And hypothetically if one fossil was found and dated back to 500,000 years, then anyone thinking that was when they went extinct have been proven wrong when another one dating back only 200,000 years was found later on. And when another is found and it dates back 100,000 years, then anyone claiming they went extinct 200,000 was obviously wrong as well. The point being is that no one is really looking for these fossils ... they are happened upon. So how many fossils digs go on in the PNW ... can we say far less than what goes on in other parts of the world where gigantopithecus fossils have been found? So for an animal that may have lived more than nine million years ago ... why then have so few fossils been found to date when the species thrived for so long? And how does that justify someone thinking that there should be fossils laying all over the place if the species is still alive ... after all there have been only a grand total of 4 to 5 jawbone fossils ever found! If I apply the lack of sound reasoning that I believe you demonstrated, then one could say that only 5 gigantopithecus ever lived ... some 100s of thousands of years apart from the next one and that's just plain whacked!!!

 

Based on what little has been found of gigantopithecus' fossils, I find it improper to say with any certainty that the species went extinct when such an animal fitting their description is still being reported to be seen

 

Yes, the G.Blacki jawbone was found in a drawer. I am not sure what your point is however. I think the idea that BF could be an extant G.Blacki is losing popularity in the BF community. I could be wrong on that one of course. The BF community do not publish a lot of papers after all. 

 

My point was around the lack of fossil record for BF in North America. We have no G.Blacki fossils from anywhere outside of Asia. We have no other extant 800ln mammals running around all over North America that have zero fossil record or any kind of physical record for that matter. Bears, which BF is often compared to in terms of habitat and diet have, in fact, an exceptionally good fossil record. So what is up with BF? Are his bones made of something special? Does he just evaporate upon death? Why would another animal of similar size and similar habitat leave behind remains, but not BF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

 

Saying it's pointless is making a prediction at severe odds with the evidence.

 

"No proof" isn't a discussion point.  One cannot explain away compelling evidence with anything else.  Not with made-up negatives; not with one's personal convictions; not with things not happening on one's personal schedule; not with anything.

 

If there is a single unknown in the universe science should be pressing with extreme urgency, it's this one.  Evidence says so; no other unknown has anything near this much supporting it.  It's  a severe waste of time not to be doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

 But the point is, Gigantopithecus has been extinct for over half a million years, and they still found evidence, one would think a current species would be much easier to find in the fossil record, especially in areas unaffected by glaciation.

 

So you are another one who wants to debunk the existence of the Sasquatch by making post that do not have their facts straight.

 

Gigantopithecus (from the Ancient Greek γίγας gigas "giant", and πίθηκος pithekos "ape") is an extinct genus of ape that existed from roughly nine million years to as recently as one hundred thousand years ago,[1] in what is now China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as several hominin species.[2] The fossil record suggests that individuals of the species Gigantopithecus blacki were the largest apes that ever lived, standing up to 3 m (9.8 ft), and weighing up to 540 kg (1,200 lb).[1][3][4]

 

 

And about that fossil record you butchered the facts on ... Are you suggesting that someone went looking for gigantopithecus fossils and found them? My understanding is that they were found by accident. And that some were fossil dated two hundred thousand years between each other. I think to date so far that there are only four or five lower jawbones that have been found and those were found over an area that spanned several thousand miles. So why were only so few gigantopithecus fossils found in those areas?

 

And hypothetically if one fossil was found and dated back to 500,000 years, then anyone thinking that was when they went extinct have been proven wrong when another one dating back only 200,000 years was found later on. And when another is found and it dates back 100,000 years, then anyone claiming they went extinct 200,000 was obviously wrong as well. The point being is that no one is really looking for these fossils ... they are happened upon. So how many fossils digs go on in the PNW ... can we say far less than what goes on in other parts of the world where gigantopithecus fossils have been found? So for an animal that may have lived more than nine million years ago ... why then have so few fossils been found to date when the species thrived for so long? And how does that justify someone thinking that there should be fossils laying all over the place if the species is still alive ... after all there have been only a grand total of 4 to 5 jawbone fossils ever found! If I apply the lack of sound reasoning that I believe you demonstrated, then one could say that only 5 gigantopithecus ever lived ... some 100s of thousands of years apart from the next one and that's just plain whacked!!!

 

Based on what little has been found of gigantopithecus' fossils, I find it improper to say with any certainty that the species went extinct when such an animal fitting their description is still being reported to be seen

 

Actually North America has twice as many sites as Asia does in the list of fossil sites, a worldwide record of areas that are well known for the presence of fossils.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...