2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

Use of fire and tools precedes modern humans.  Homo Habilis was the first tool user in the line.  Bigfoot is not a tool user.  There are warm parts of Europe so just getting to Europe is not an automatic conquering of the climate.  Only us and Neanderthal actually made a go of it in the northern climes.  Both fire users and tool users and tool makers.  I don't think an upright Gorilla would stand much of a chance in Winnipeg in January.

OK, how about tools used by bears that make a living on the Arctic Ocean?

 

Temperate and arctic and tropical bears.  Temperate and arctic and tropical deer.  Teperate arctic and tropical canids.  Cats.  Porcupines.  So on.

 

What is so hard about the idea of an ape adapted to cold temperatures, when the evidence says there is one?  I'd stop the not-reading on purpose and start readiing on purpose.

 

  As usual it requires too many back flips to keep bigfoot going.  At least it does me.

 

Is this willful?  Why not read up?

Start by understanding that I am no longer a passenger on the bigfoot belief train.  

 

I never have been and never will be.  So?

You dodge exceptionally well. I know, it's "science" fault, eh? Once again, and every time. Nudge that stylus, on the vinyl record, my friend.

I am not sure bigfoot skeptics realize the extreme irony of this stance.  Maybe one does not see oneself as "dodging" when one chooses to not even engage, maybe that is it.

 

How could science be at fault?  Science establishes the virtual certainty of the animal.  People not paying attention to this small fact can blame someone for that.  Themselves.

Edited January 12, 2015 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The Bearing Land Bridge is the most likely scenario for a variety of creatures and humans to have crossed from Asia to

North America, and that has happened relatively recently and in the more distant past as sea levels have made that completely

possible.  So why would there be any need to explain the matter with Continental Drift?   The North American Ape is really

just an answer to what we see elsewhere in the world, although we think that all these cold weather apes have gone extinct,

well surprise....It fits that one of these Apes, or several of these Apes found their way to our continent, just like the peoples

and other animals that moved freely back and forth during those epochs, except in this case it still exists.  It may help to know

that there also were some very temperate periods that allowed greater diversity than what we have at present.  I know I am approaching

this in a rudimentary fashion, but some seem to lack this understanding.

 

Some individuals might argue the time tables due to fundamental beliefs, but I think we all could agree on this having occurred somewhere

in time, and this understanding is the basis for the existence of such a specie today, it fits very nicely with what science has already more

or less proven to have occurred.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[norseman]

I think the possibility of such an animal existing or existed in North America is good.

Horses, camels, lions, sloths and elephants all roamed North America. Red Panda fossils have been found. Certainly there is a connection between Asia and the Americas.

And to top it all off? Some archeologists do maintain that early man did in fact ome to the new world.

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2013/08/homo-erectus-in-north-america.html

[Guest]

So answer his contentions, eh?

 

They already have been answered.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

<<<Watch Slide Show                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

So you can see as little as 12,000 years ago animals and humans crossed freely between Asia and North America, and this is why the Chinese

Yeren is the same as the North American Sasquatch, as these creatures have shared one land mass for at least 10,000 years in the near past.

It's simply our European origins that lead us to think of America as a separate continent, when in actuality is was not truly a separate land mass

for most of time.  We clearly see the connection between the northern Chinese peoples and the Inuit peoples as well as the commonality of species

roaming Siberia and Alaska, or better yet the Himalaya's and Alaska, well that brings up the Yeti and the polar bear thing that seems to be a bit

misconstrued, but I make my point these creatures all share a common ancestry within their species and did not pop up out of no where

on some distant land mass.  What this means is that Sasquatch could trace it's origins all the way back to Africa, where all the great apes seemed

to have originated, and are a distant relative to these other modern apes somewhere in the ancient tree of life.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest DWA]

They already have been answered.

I am really not getting this.  Bigfoot skeptics' questions were largely answered 47 years ago.

 

Is there any other field in which a number of scientists and other technical specialists, with skills that could not possibly be more relevant, showing all their work mind you, are asserting a scientific truth - and being so roundly ignored that people are insisting that questions showing no curiosity or inclination for enlightenment - or even basic reading and research skills - be answered?

 

That has been answered too.  It's really just piling on and making fun at this point.  But I can tell you this:  I wouldn't come anywhere like this and listen to people telling me what to read and where, and how precisely to think about it - stop, you have been told, over and over! - and not read that stuff but keep saying the same thing I came in saying.  With nothing, anywhere, that would give a thinking person hope that I was right.   I honestly could not think of a bigger waste of my time.  (No.  IT IS.)

 

Bigfoot skeptics really aren't saying anything interesting until they start addressing the evidence.  When is that gonna happen?

 

While we're on dodging.

Edited January 12, 2015 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

 What this means is that Sasquatch could trace it's origins all the way back to Africa, where all the great apes seemed

to have originated, and are a distant relative to these other modern apes somewhere in the ancient tree of life.

 

Well, funny you mention this (although I think it's pretty obviously true that all apes originated either in Africa or Asia, and there is an intriguing argument to be made for the latter).

 

Meldrum considers the Paranthropus genus a possible sasquatch progenitor.  He makes a good morphological case.  And of course, that Paranthropus fossils haven't been found anwhere along the supposed radiation path to North America doesn't mean anything but that they haven't been found yet.  (By anyone who brought in the find and had it validated.)  Anyone finding a flaw in this reasoning will proceed to tell us how the lesser panda got from Tennessee to Nepal, or the giant panda from Spain to China...or how we have chimps and gorillas and virtually no tangible clues how they evolved.

Edited January 12, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

<<<Watch Slide Show                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

So you can see as little as 12,000 years ago animals and humans crossed freely between Asia and North America, and this is why the Chinese

Yeren is the same as the North American Sasquatch, as these creatures have shared one land mass for at least 10,000 years in the near past.

It's simply our European origins that lead us to think of America as a separate continent, when in actuality is was not truly a separate land mass

for most of time.  We clearly see the connection between the northern Chinese peoples and the Inuit peoples as well as the commonality of species

roaming Siberia and Alaska, or better yet the Himalaya's and Alaska, well that brings up the Yeti and the polar bear thing that seems to be a bit

misconstrued, but I make my point these creatures all share a common ancestry within their species and did not pop up out of no where

on some distant land mass.  What this means is that Sasquatch could trace it's origins all the way back to Africa, where all the great apes seemed

to have originated, and are a distant relative to these other modern apes somewhere in the ancient tree of life.

For the last million years there has been an ice age every 100,000 years. The one 650,000 years ago lasted 50,000 years. So much of the time Eurasia and North America has been connected allowing migration of various animals and humans both directions. In a way other than warm periods, you can consider the continents as one big continent. Human history on North America keeps getting pushed back further and further. 14,000 is accepted now, and evidence suggests human history goes back at least 22,000 years. As things go, that is probably wrong too. Part of the problem with North America is that humans have not been here for millennia finding evidence of old stuff like Europe and Asia. When much of modern science thought the earliest humans were not here over 10,000 years ago, older sediments have not even been examined until recently. Since coastal areas where human habitation during ice ages was likely are under water now, truly old settlements are unlikely to be found, at least until the next ice age. When science starts looking at sedimentary history, beyond 14,000 years perhaps both human and BF evidence will be found along with it.

[SWWASAS]

I was thinking about those that choose, and that is not unreasonable, to wait until the specimen on the lab table shows up to declare personal acceptance of the species. That tactic is probably a lot less effort than spending a lot of time in the field to prove it to yourself. Lay skeptics probably do not have much to worry about. They will just quietly slip away. The problem is if they are scientists that are here anonymously or have been publically vocal skeptics. I suspect that some of the skeptics here are scientists just from the technical nature of their posts. What happens to scientists, many who have been publically vocal skeptics, when the proof is on the lab table? Presumably they have examined the evidence and have concluded there is nothing out there. Do they think that their now obviously wrong skepticism and analysis of evidence, will be embraced by science? I don't think so. Science loves to cut the legs of those proven wrong. Those that have examined the evidence and rejected it, will be vilified, by lay proponents as well as academics who are safely not fully invested in public skepticism. I am sure you have seen both types of scientists on various documentary videos. Some that seem open to the possibility and others that outright reject it. They had evidence in their hands of one of the greatest natural history discoveries in North America and rejected it? Their previous arguments will sound pretty weak with that body on the lab table.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I think the fact that humans are a relatively new development on the North American continent points to the fact that

we are an extremely new specie by any definition.  It may also point to the fact that whatever separated Homo Sapiens

from other hominids was rather a dramatic development.  Just to point out that some schools that hold to the slow gradual

evolutionary theory cannot easily explain the sudden leap forward our kind took in the not so distant past.

[Guest Crowlogic]

OK, how about tools used by bears that make a living on the Arctic Ocean?

 

Temperate and arctic and tropical bears.  Temperate and arctic and tropical deer.  Teperate arctic and tropical canids.  Cats.  Porcupines.  So on.

 

What is so hard about the idea of an ape adapted to cold temperatures, when the evidence says there is one?  I'd stop the not-reading on purpose and start readiing on purpose.

 

I am not sure bigfoot skeptics realize the extreme irony of this stance.  Maybe one does not see oneself as "dodging" when one chooses to not even engage, maybe that is it.

 

How could science be at fault?  Science establishes the virtual certainty of the animal.  People not paying attention to this small fact can blame someone for that.  Themselves.

Show us the arctic Ape and you'll have a case.

[Guest Crowlogic]

The Bearing Land Bridge is the most likely scenario for a variety of creatures and humans to have crossed from Asia to

North America, and that has happened relatively recently and in the more distant past as sea levels have made that completely

possible.  So why would there be any need to explain the matter with Continental Drift?   The North American Ape is really

just an answer to what we see elsewhere in the world, although we think that all these cold weather apes have gone extinct,

well surprise....It fits that one of these Apes, or several of these Apes found their way to our continent, just like the peoples

and other animals that moved freely back and forth during those epochs, except in this case it still exists.  It may help to know

that there also were some very temperate periods that allowed greater diversity than what we have at present.  I know I am approaching

this in a rudimentary fashion, but some seem to lack this understanding.

 

Some individuals might argue the time tables due to fundamental beliefs, but I think we all could agree on this having occurred somewhere

in time, and this understanding is the basis for the existence of such a specie today, it fits very nicely with what science has already more

or less proven to have occurred.

Where did the apes come from that crossed the Bering Straight during the last ice age?  Where did they develop their resistance to extreme cold?  If you were crossing the Bering Straight during the Ice Age you were already rigged for cold climates.  This is something Apes have not done.  Some like Mountain Gorillas can stand heavy coolness but below freezing temperatures on an extended period hasn't happened.  Humans and proto huimans with fire, tools, and weapons have done it but they've already made the leap to techno intelligence.  

 

While we on the subject there is the Snow Monkeys of Japan but Monkeys are not Apes.   Furthermore their survival methodology does not seem to reflect anything in bigfoot observations.  Part of that survival methodology involves a willing acceptance to use human presence as a resource in aiding survival.

[norseman]

Where did the apes come from that crossed the Bering Straight during the last ice age? Where did they develop their resistance to extreme cold? If you were crossing the Bering Straight during the Ice Age you were already rigged for cold climates. This is something Apes have not done. Some like Mountain Gorillas can stand heavy coolness but below freezing temperatures on an extended period hasn't happened. Humans and proto huimans with fire, tools, and weapons have done it but they've already made the leap to techno intelligence.

While we on the subject there is the Snow Monkeys of Japan but Monkeys are not Apes. Furthermore their survival methodology does not seem to reflect anything in bigfoot observations. Part of that survival methodology involves a willing acceptance to use human presence as a resource in aiding survival.

Asia.

There was no need to develop resistance to extreme cold, the southern parts of Beringia were temperate like much of the northern Pacific rim. Think Ketchikan here vs. Greenland.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/02/27/cu-boulder-led-study-says-bering-land-bridge-area-likely-long-term-refuge

Again, proto humans in Northern Europe one million years ago, predate any real technological advancements that would shield them from the cold, unlike modern humans.

My understanding is that you believe the creature is now extinct, but once roamed North America? How do you propose it got here?

Edited January 12, 2015 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

Show us the arctic Ape and you'll have a case.

Don't have to.  (a) Arctic sightings are outliers, though intriguing ones.  (   b   ) The evidence has already made a powerful case, however, for a cold-adapted ape. The scientific mainstream is way behind the proponents on this.  They need to catch up.  (They have no case.)

Edited January 12, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Asia.

There was no need to develop resistance to extreme cold, the southern parts of Beringia were temperate like much of the northern Pacific rim. Think Ketchikan here vs. Greenland.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/02/27/cu-boulder-led-study-says-bering-land-bridge-area-likely-long-term-refuge

Again, proto humans in Northern Europe one million years ago, predate any real technological advancements that would shield them from the cold, unlike modern humans.

My understanding is that you believe the creature is now extinct, but once roamed North America? How do you propose it got here?

Excellent point how did it get here?  If it came under ice age conditions it didn't get here like we did.    How did the monkeys of South America arrive?  Same method I'd say.  But more and more likely it never arrived at all.  The feat of crossing the land bridge requires  a resistance to severe cold.  Humans migrated following prey but humans had all they needed to survive.  I'll say it again that to ascribe extreme cold survivability to apes lacking technology makes little sense.  Exactly who are our extreme cold enduring ancestors?  Where did they inhabit, how far north did they make it and how long did they endure?  Not to be forgotten what was the climate at the time of their presence.  I suspect you'll discover they were not around during climatic cold periods.  

Don't have to.  (a) Arctic sightings are outliers, though intriguing ones.  (   b   ) The evidence has already made a powerful case, however, for a cold-adapted ape. The scientific mainstream is way behind the proponents on this.  They need to catch up.  (They have no case.)

Sightings can be faked.  This is what nobody gets  The bigfoot issue relies entirely on evidence that can be fabricated.  The evidence when I cross examine it is riddled with holes.  Bigfoot exists on faith not in fact.  Every day without a body and every day with laughable images indicates that the beast is not there.  

 

Evidence to ponder:  Why doesn't every bigfoot print show the mid tarsal break?  Why do most of them not show it?  Why do only a few show it?