Let's Do Some Math...

[Guest Stan Norton]

Species are not distributed randomly. A species can be rare but widespread. A species, even if present, can be significantly under recorded For reasons of behaviour or terrain or habitat. Basic ecological principles found in any good text book. It's a lot more complex than the arguments being proferred by some here.

[roguefooter]

Of course they have skulls to be found, all of them.

But that has nothing to do with what you said. And the context of what we are talking about, finding bones.

You said that every body comes with a skull which of course it does in the literal sense and always when the animal is alive.

But when it's dead as we are talking about, there is absolutely no way that every body comes with a skull, for a number of different reasons

If you tried to stop being sarcastic for a moment, you'd acknowledge I'm sure that bones and bodies are not always found to be completely intact all of the time.

 

Nobody ever said they were completely intact all of the time, that's just you acting on an assumption.

 

Every Bigfoot has a skull and it doesn't have to be right there alongside the bones of the body- that's just simple common sense. What it does mean is that the skull can be unearthed just like any of the other bones, so obviously if someone finds the skull they're not going to just bury it thinking it's part of a moose, like BC Witness theorized.

 

 

Species are not distributed randomly. A species can be rare but widespread. A species, even if present, can be significantly under recorded For reasons of behaviour or terrain or habitat. Basic ecological principles found in any good text book. It's a lot more complex than the arguments being proferred by some here.

 

Yet they all still have bones, which after thousands of generations of them existing have never been unearthed, even though a good percentage of land has been cleared.

 

It doesn't matter how they are distributed. Unless they all trek the bodies of their dead across the continent to some central Sasquatch Cemetery that has never been discovered, then bones should have been found somewhere at some point from all the land clearing that has been done over time.

Edited April 9, 2014 by roguefooter

[Cotter]

Combined with the fact that not a single skull or bone has ever been unearthed and reported while the country was being developed (and still is). Is that something you would factor into the equation?

 

That is not a fact.  In fact, just the opposite occurred.  There are dozens of reports of large humanoid bones being unearthed during early American settlement.  Covering numerous states and newspapers.  The Smithsonian had even sent representatives to evaluate some of the dig sites.

 

Then, years later, the Smithsonian admitted to stifling discoveries to protect the scientific and religious dogma at the time.

 

This has been shown and discussed here many times.

[roguefooter]

^No, that is not fact at all. Just sensationalism at it's best.

 

Old newspapers were part factual and part tabloid- whatever would make the paper interesting and sell. Like other myths they probably started out with a hint of truth, that being the unearthing of tall Native bones like the Karankawa people, then embellished into great giants. These kind of stories would spread from one paper to another because they sold papers. It even has the phony "secret cover up" ending.

 

These stories were not isolated to the US, there were also the same stories of giants found in the UK- unaffected by any Smithsonian cover up. Yet like all the other stories there was never anything to them outside of being just stories to sell newspapers.

 

Seriously, do you think these discoveries of giants would just suddenly stop even though land clearing continued? No. Sorry but that whole thing was just tabloid sensationalism of the times.

Edited April 9, 2014 by roguefooter

[Cotter]

Hi Rogue - with all due respect, I was refuting your claim that there were no reports of BF type bones being found.

 

I explained there were.  Many of them.

Your rebuttal, with all due respect.  Is your opinion.

[Guest Stan Norton]

"Yet they all still have bones, which after thousands of generations of them existing have never been unearthed, even though a good percentage of land has been cleared.

It doesn't matter how they are distributed. Unless they all trek the bodies of their dead across the continent to some central Sasquatch Cemetery that has never been discovered, then bones should have been found somewhere at some point from all the land clearing that has been done over time."

The perfect example of an 'it just stands to reason' argument.

It matters very much where any sasquatch may have been distributed. It also matters very much where and when and by whom said clearance occurred. And the methods used. And a whole bunch of other factors which make it a far more complex issue that you suggest. It's a pretty weak argument though it can appear attractive.

[Cotter]

A little bit of history - this is from the county I live in.

 

I think it is an accurate representation of how many remains were treated as we settled and did what we needed to to survive.

 

    "Scarcely any of the few small mounds in Richland county have been properly opened. The examinations have rarely been systematic, and hence much has been lost. Commonly the plow has been run over the mounds, regardless of the history a careful search would reveal, until almost all traces of their existence have been obliterated. This ruthless leveling of the mounds has been perpetrated, however, less to gratify the iconoclastic propensities of the plowmen, than their cupidity. They wanted the corn the mounds would produce. Running the plowshare through the mounds is not a very successful method of obtaining a knowledge of their contents."

 

http://www.usgenweb.info/wirichland/books/1906-1.htm

[roguefooter]

Hi Rogue - with all due respect, I was refuting your claim that there were no reports of BF type bones being found.

 

I explained there were.  Many of them.

Your rebuttal, with all due respect.  Is your opinion.

 

Right, semantics. Okay let me clarify then- verifiable reports and not tabloid journalism. That should also count out the Weekly World News.

 

 

The perfect example of an 'it just stands to reason' argument.

It matters very much where any sasquatch may have been distributed. It also matters very much where and when and by whom said clearance occurred. And the methods used. And a whole bunch of other factors which make it a far more complex issue that you suggest. It's a pretty weak argument though it can appear attractive.

 

Well Stan if we go by the distribution of Sasquatch according to the eyewitness accounts on this forum and databases, then that basically means they thrive virtually all across the US and Canada. Speckled throughout human populated areas and seen frequently in the same forested areas where logging occurs. That would put their distribution right smack where land development occurs.

 

You can call that a weak argument, but then you'd be putting all the eyewitness accounts into question.

[roguefooter]

A little bit of history - this is from the county I live in.

 

I think it is an accurate representation of how many remains were treated as we settled and did what we needed to to survive.

 

 

An accurate representation for some at the time, but certainly not all. It was also common practice for looters in those days to dig through burial mounds and take bones and other things to sell because they were worth money. So while some viewed the mounds as good farming land, others viewed them as gold. People would make knives and other things out of NA bones back then.

 

There is also the fact that land development never stopped and is still going on today. Let's not forget that.

Edited April 9, 2014 by roguefooter

[WSA]

Let's face it, the lack of physical evidence is always going to perplex those who are drawn in by the eyewitness accounts. I am one of those. I remind myself though,  world history is replete with examples of things that "should" have happened, but didn't, or didn't happen on the timetable we would like to impose. The natural world just doesn't operate to suit our expectations, never did, and never will. This just might very well be one of those examples.

 

But, that said, I am not as certain as some that the situation is as absolute as opponents would make it out to be. We do have the Minaret skull to consider, and enough circulating accounts of large bones being found to give this at least the penumbra of  "very well could be true."

 

Lastly, it bears in mind to consider if the BF species is intelligent enough to avoid close human scrutiny in life, if is likely to have the wits and skill to avoid detection of its dead. How it might do this is fairly easy to imagine. I could give you several scenarios without much thought, and others have as well. And keep in mind too...bones are not "forever", depending on soil, moisture, exposure and scavenger populations, they could be reduced to something that would not arouse too much curiosity, relatively soon.

[Cotter]

Right, semantics. Okay let me clarify then- verifiable reports and not tabloid journalism. That should also count out the Weekly World News.

 

Would you consider the New York Times a tabloid?  How about Beloit College? 

 

 

"Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912. The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone's concept of a textbook standard. They were enormous. These were not average human beings. 

Strange Skulls 

First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features. 

Their heights ranged between 7.6ft and 10 feet and their skulls "presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day." They tend to have a double row of teeth, 6 fingers, 6 toes and like humans came in differant races. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars. Heads usually found are elongated believed due to longer than normal life span."

 

Giant Skeleton Discovered in Maple Creek, WI 

On December 20th, 1897 the New York Times reported that three large burial mounds had been discovered near Maple Creek, WI. Upon excavation, a skeleton measuring over nine feet from head to toe was discovered with finely tempered copper rods and other relics. 

 

 

Here is an image of the NYT article.

 

OK, so, the NYT may not cut it.  How about an official Smithsonian report?

 

"Twelfth Annual Report from the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology:  clipped for pertinent info:  

 

 

So, I don't think it is semantics at all, you just raised the bar from "reports of giants" to "verifiable reports of giants", which I can only equate to proof.  Right?  b/c if the report is verifiable, it must mean there are the giant bones at the end of the process.

Edited April 9, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC
At the member's request

[Guest Stan Norton]

Well Stan if we go by the distribution of Sasquatch according to the eyewitness accounts on this forum and databases, then that basically means they thrive virtually all across the US and Canada. Speckled throughout human populated areas and seen frequently in the same forested areas where logging occurs. That would put their distribution right smack where land development occurs.

You can call that a weak argument, but then you'd be putting all the eyewitness accounts into question.

Again, I'm unconvinced by your reasoning. I agree wholeheartedly that the wealth of anecdotal reports cannot tell us anything very much at all that would count as empirical evidence: they are by their nature subjective and thus difficult to analyse beyond simple patterns and categories.

However, sceptics often cite those very reports as 'proving' that if sasquatch is anywhere then it is everywhere and thus is obviously nowhere. I take exception to this tabloid opinion because it is blunt reasoning. Just because an organism is seen in one locale, even fairly regularly, does not infer that it must therefore have every chance of being found dead there. There is also inherent bias in the data: many reports from incongruous locations may in fact refer to the same animal seen by numerous people over an extended period or one animal seen by many on one occasion. For example, if I look on my favourite bird news website and see that a vagrant species has been reported many times, I shouldn't assume that there are multiple examples but rather the same one reported more than once. So, there is a danger in equating many thousands of sasquatch reports with this being an abundant species. The two don't follow. As I said, it is perfectly normal for a species to be rare but widespread and readily observed.

Anyway, I do agree with you that simple mathematical comparisons are essentially meaningless when the purported data are collected in a non scientific manner. Let's try some state wide census transcripts and see where we get.

[MIB]

"of course".   Speaking as one of those eyewitnesses, the lack of bones is perplexing to me.   "What has been seen cannot be unseen."    What I saw is FACT.  The lack of acknowledged bones is FACT.    That means ... the assumptions used to account for the lack of bones are inadequate.   Either the bones exist and are not being acknowledged or the bones have not been found.    If they have not been found, the assumptions about where they are located are wrong.   It is not the first time that hard-held assumptions have been wrong.

 

MIB

[Guest Stan Norton]

Worryingly, the links to the giant burials website appear to be very much in the anti evolution camp. Does this contravene forum protocol? I suspect that any serious archaeologist could shred this silly notion to pieces. What has any of this mumbo jumbo got to do with sasquatch??

[Cotter]

Hard tellin', I suppose a mod could remove the hyperlinks, (I should have), they aren't pertinent to the discussion.  I don't think I can go back and edit.

 

What is of value in that post is a demonstration that the statement of 'there are no reports of large bones found' is not accurate.

 

It has to do with BF, b/c this whole dang thread turned into a 'where are the bones' discussion.  It provides 2 answers to that question as can be found in the Smithsonian document.

 

#1)  They HAVE been found and reported

#2)  In at least 1 case, they crumbed when they attempted to move them

 

I wonder what a plow would do to a bone that crumbles when handled by human hands.

@Stan - I have a message sent to admin to rectify the religious link issue.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Cotter