Erickson: Sasquatch More Widespread Than Common Black Bear

[Guest]

T'is not Mr Erickson's personal opinion that matters though initially in all this G, it's the DNA stuff he/they're working on & to a much lesser extent, the Footage they have..

He's only saying they're more widespread anyway, he isn't saying they have a bigger population etc.

Edi:t For Sausage Finger Grammar

BobbyO said:

Edit: For Sausage Finger Grammar

Susi says:

Too funny. I needed something to laugh about this morning while watching the news about Japan. Thanks, and hugs..

Edited March 16, 2011 by Susiq2

[BobbyO]

I'm guessing Erickson's statement of BF being more widespread than Black Bears would be based on the Map above, compared to this below with no BB Mapped in ND, SD, NE, KS, OK & 99% of TX compared to the 6, 16, 13, 29 & 180 Reports of Sightings in all of those States respectively of BF, for example...

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/

[Guest]

Yes, Erickson is correct, if Sasquatch exists, it would be one of, if not THE the most diversely distributed mammals on the face of the earth.

Drew, That is an excellent point.

BF type creatures abound around the world.(I Hope)

I do know that they have been reported by citizens around the world due to their terrifying encounters with creatures of this type, and distant sightings of said creatures..

[Guest]

I'm guessing Erickson's statement of BF being more widespread than Black Bears would be based on the Map above, compared to this below with no BB Mapped in ND, SD, NE, KS, OK & 99% of TX compared to the 6, 16, 13, 29 & 180 Reports of Sightings in all of those States respectively of BF, for example...

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/

Wow, Thanks for posting that very informative information. Hugs...

[Guest gershake]

Drew, That is an excellent point.

BF type creatures abound around the world.(I Hope)

Drew was being sarcastic.

[Guest]

If what Erickson meant was there are just as many and the purported black bear population in the US, which is close to 1 million, correct? Then I agree with him 110%, I believe there are so many its insane.

You sincerely believe that there are that many BF? Wow, there is hope of seeing one!

As long as it *doesn't* see me! I'm sorta afraid of them, well, a whole lot afraid of them...Yikes! I can't help it, I'm a girly girl, and afraid of huge hairy monsters..

[BobbyO]

You sincerely believe that there are that many BF? Wow, there is hope of seeing one!

As long as it *doesn't* see me! I'm sorta afraid of them, well, a whole lot afraid of them...Yikes! I can't help it, I'm a girly girl, and afraid of huge hairy monsters..

I think that Poster was being sarcastic also..

[Guest]

But you still have to prove that squatchy is Giganto, which massively unlikely again, imo. It wouldn't have made the original journey.

In my opinion, Giganto is the most likely ancestor. There was a route in place several times in the past where man and megafauna traversed from Asia to the Americas. Giganto is described in body shape and size similarly to that of Sasquatch. Many locations along this route are now underwater along the coast line, the most likely areas of a migration route for megafauna. Many other animals ancestors in the Americas come from this route to Asia as well. Surface or out in the open finds of Giganto have not been discovered in Asia, only have they been located in caves where they might have been carried by rodents or mammals. Soil conditions in Asia are more lenient for fossilization. Both Asia and the Americas have had many humans in the past scour the earth's surface for minerals in these areas. Asia had large teeth brought to pharmacies by locals, ground into powder and sold as remedial medicines. A common practice in Asia. In the Americas not so, any teeth gathering on the surface (something from the body that would last quite a bit longer than any bones) might not have been preserved as in Asia unless they ended up in that community. This may have happened in the gold mining Asiatic communities along the west coast of America. Religion here would frown on anything like that and it may have been a hidden practice. Giganto may have lived with other hominid species at the same time. Giganto's diet may have made it migrate in this direction. Giganto may have been hunted into this direction. Giganto may have still existed as recently as 10,000 years ago.

Proof? That is premature. First you need a theory and then testing for it. That gets done over and over till the theory explains most if not all the observations. Everyone knows the detractor's theories. All they have to do is sit and watch the news for the people coming out of the wood work claiming to have perpetrated a hoax. They need not spend valuable time or money on it. The proponents are in the opposite circumstances. They have to find and scrutinize obscure documents from the past, explore areas normally not traversed, wait for climatic conditions to change.

Only those who have not been in this field very long think it possible to find one thing that will be considered the ultimate proof of the Sasquatch existence, the smoking gun. All the evidence collected should just be considered the building up of context and support for their theories in order to fine tune their approach direction. Modern humans have only been in place on this planet for a short while. To assume that in that short time they have learned all there is to know is pretty conceited.

[Guest fenris]

In my opinion, Giganto is the most likely ancestor. There was a route in place several times in the past where man and megafauna traversed from Asia to the Americas. Giganto is described in body shape and size similarly to that of Sasquatch. Many locations along this route are now underwater along the coast line, the most likely areas of a migration route for megafauna. Many other animals ancestors in the Americas come from this route to Asia as well. Surface or out in the open finds of Giganto have not been discovered in Asia, only have they been located in caves where they might have been carried by rodents or mammals.

All conjecture, and no compelling proof (for me anyway) that a likley temperate to tropical ape would make that journey largely through tundra. Makes no sense. A proto human much more likley.

Soil conditions in Asia are more lenient for fossilization. Both Asia and the Americas have had many humans in the past scour the earth's surface for minerals in these areas. Asia had large teeth brought to pharmacies by locals, ground into powder and sold as remedial medicines. A common practice in Asia. In the Americas not so, any teeth gathering on the surface (something from the body that would last quite a bit longer than any bones) might not have been preserved as in Asia unless they ended up in that community.

Not relevant to my point. There was ust recently a Discovery channel show challenging the land bridge theory as well, giving evidence the Polynesians made it here on the West coast as well. the Land bridge is not a verbatum.

This may have happened in the gold mining Asiatic communities along the west coast of America. Religion here would frown on anything like that and it may have been a hidden practice. Giganto may have lived with other hominid species at the same time. Giganto's diet may have made it migrate in this direction. Giganto may have been hunted into this direction. Giganto may have still existed as recently as 10,000 years ago.

Maybes, couldas and conjecture don't prove a thing, not buying it. That's a stretch to make an unlikley theory seem likely.

Everyone knows the detractor's theories. All they have to do is sit and watch the news for the people coming out of the wood work claiming to have perpetrated a hoax. They need not spend valuable time or money on it. The proponents are in the opposite circumstances.

This has nothing to do with the us verses them proponent verses detractor debates, it's (for me anyway) greatest likelihood, and yes, the Polynesian I saw is conjecture to, but Giganto making the journey over a land bridge during the ice age is MUCH LESS likely than a proto human type doing the same.

Only those who have not been in this field very long think it possible to find one thing that will be considered the ultimate proof of the Sasquatch existence, the smoking gun.

This isn't a field as long as there are no Bigfoot scientists, and don't quote Meldrum to me, BIGFOOT isn't his field. Squatchery is pseudo science at present in the way much of "Academic" type stuff is done, and I wait to be disproven that the missing gun will be a body found in osh kosh somewhere by some unassuming old lady out walking her dog with squatchy being the furthest thing from her mind.

All the evidence collected should just be considered the building up of context and support for their theories in order to fine tune their approach direction. Modern humans have only been in place on this planet for a short while. To assume that in that short time they have learned all there is to know is pretty conceited.

conjecture and psuedoscience to make an unlikely theory stick, it doesn't. Sorry Mr. Noll, I just don't buy Squatchy being Giganto, and unil proven wrong.....that's my stance.

[Guest]

All conjecture, and no compelling proof (for me anyway) that a likley temperate to tropical ape would make that journey largely through tundra. Makes no sense. A proto human much more likley.

Giganto lived along side and competed for resources with the Giant Panda (still existing). It lives in a similar environment as the PNW.

The land bridge was not tundra. There were a couple of unfrozen corridors traversing the route. One inland and one along the coast.

conjecture and psuedoscience to make an unlikely theory stick, it doesn't. Sorry Mr. Noll, I just don't buy Squatchy being Giganto, and unil proven wrong.....that's my stance.

Then why are you on this forum? It isn't the ABFF (Anti-Bigfoot Forums.) I have watched a few shows myself and the common theme seems to be that science begins in the imagination, progressing through various stages of consensus testing, observations and theory posting. So why isn't this a science? What proof is there of the Brane theory?

Edited March 16, 2011 by damndirtyape

[Guest fenris]

All conjecture, and no compelling proof (for me anyway) that a likley temperate to tropical ape would make that journey largely through tundra. Makes no sense. A proto human much more likley.

Giganto lived along side and competed for resources with the Giant Panda (still existing). It lives in a similar environment as the PNW.

The land bridge was not tundra. There were a couple of unfrozen corridors traversing the route. One inland and one along the coast.

matter of Giganto's recent existence and the route it might have taken is nothing but conjecture, and a massive longshot.

[Guest]

The long held opinion is that Giganto died out 100,000 years ago, but it was admitted by the experts that it could have had a remnant population as recent as 10,000 years. Who else is their to conjecture on the subject? As for the route... you don't think other megafauna came across? Camels, horses, cats, mastodons and mammoths, monkeys and humans? There is evidence showing they made the trip. Why leave out Giganto? Certainly there were not as many Giganto around then say camels and horses so the remains would just be that much harder to find or fortuitous to have been preserved. Just look at our own fossil record compared to say the saber toothed tiger. Both continents also had the short faced bear I believe.

Edited March 16, 2011 by damndirtyape

[Guest fenris]

The long held opinion is that Giganto died out 100,000 years ago, but it was admitted by the experts that it could have had a remnant population as recent as 10,000 years. Who else is their to conjecture on the subject? As for the route... you don't think other megafauna came across? Camels, horses, cats, mastodons and mammoths, monkeys and humans? There is evidence showing they made the trip. Why leave out Giganto? Certainly there were not as many Giganto around then say camels and horses so the remains would just be that much harder to find or fortuitous to have been preserved. Just look at our own fossil record compared to say the saber toothed tiger. Both continents also had the short faced bear I believe.

There's no logic to your argument. Camels, Horses, cats, mastadons, and mammoths all are felt able to handle differing envrinmental extremes, as have humans. The model of Giganto is an ape from where Viet nam would have been, so it doesn't help that you seem to be stretching a long shot conjecture as pliable theory. You need a reason why an ape would migrate such a long distance through differing environment and make the trip in enough numbers to breed. Humans and their ilk did, show the proof, btw that monkies did. Name a species, if you can.....

The problem I have here, is your post comes off the same way the Ancient astronaught theorists do on cable, whole lot of could have, and what if does not atheory make sir. Try harder.

Edited March 16, 2011 by fenris

[Guest Sallaranda]

The environment across the land bridge would not have been tundra. Many plant fossils have been found to confirm that at certain intervals in the past, there was a mostly tropical environment across Siberia, the land bridge, Alaska, and much of North America.

Environment is hardly the argument to use here. Giganto could have easily withstood the changing environments to make the journey.

The only real argument is the lack of evidence in the form of fossils. Only one fossil of Giganto has ever been found - and that is of the jaw. Scientists can't really determine much from that. Neither can you, Fenris.

It's a plausible theory that Sasquatch is Gigantopithicus. Opinions aside.

PS I don't personally even believe Sasquatch is Giganto, I'm just here to defend the plausibility of the theory.

[Guest fenris]

The environment across the land bridge would not have been tundra. Many plant fossils have been found to confirm that at certain intervals in the past, there was a mostly tropical environment across Siberia, the land bridge, Alaska, and much of North America.

Environment is hardly the argument to use here. Giganto could have easily withstood the changing environments to make the journey.

The only real argument is the lack of evidence in the form of fossils. Only one fossil of Giganto has ever been found - and that is of the jaw. Scientists can't really determine much from that. Neither can you, Fenris.

It's a plausible theory that Sasquatch is Gigantopithicus. Opinions aside.

PS I don't personally even believe Sasquatch is Giganto, I'm just here to defend the plausibility of the theory.

tundra is only part of, it need to place a population far enough into the future of it's known existence to even give it a chance to make the journey, and even if there was a relic population, then you need enough viable numbers to do the same, and it would need a reason, in my opinion, environmental shift of conditions, what have you. It would have needed viable food supply also.

There's nothing about Giganto that doesn't make it an illogical contender, and all the theories supporting it come of as a stretch, again, imo. There's a "theory" but plausibility, nope. Without more veidence backing it up it's just more useless conjecture that can't be proven.

Edited March 16, 2011 by fenris