2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^^

Correct. Albeit your article ends with the Miocene epoch about 7 million years ago.

The conditions and evolution we are discussing are much more recent. Just the fact of comparing a more modern bipedal ape to a more ancient quadraped ape is comparing apples to oranges. Homo Erectus was found on every major old world continent, and some contend the Americas because of fossil tool evidence. Most proclaim them to be the result of geological processes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In 1959 Louis Leakey, while at the British Museum of Natural History in London, received a visit from Ruth DeEtte Simpson, an archaeologist from California. Simpson had acquired what looked like ancient scrapers from a site in the Calico Hills and showed it to Leakey.

Leakey viewed it as important to study the Calico Hill site,[7] as he was convinced that the number and distribution of native languages in the Americas required more time than 12,000 years to evolve and acquire their current distribution.[8] In 1963, Leakey obtained funds from the National Geographic Society and commenced archaeological excavations with Simpson. Excavations in an area stratigraphically separate from a verified 10,000 year old Paleoindian site were carried out by Leakey and Simpson, who believed that they had located stone artifacts that were dated 100,000 years or older, suggesting a human presence in North America much earlier than estimated.[9]

The archaeologist Jeffrey Goodman who worked at the site with Leakey had also claimed the stone artifacts to be human made. Goodman has also made controversial statements that the artifacts found at Calico Hills may be as old as 500,000 years and if proven would be the oldest human artifacts in the world, which would place human origins in the Americas.[10] However the majority of scientists have rejected these claims, according to Kenneth Feder "Goodman's claims were not backed up with even a shred of evidence."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And yes......it's THAT Leakey, but regardless Homo Erectus got around, as did other bipedal "apes".

Edited January 13, 2015 by norseman

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The recent past in my opinion is in the last 15,000 to 30,000 years ago, I believe that Sasquatch had already evolved to it's current state when it crossed the

divide, otherwise we would see a difference between it and the Yeren, and by all indications sighitings and footprints evidence, these creatures are one and 

the same. I think that the time frame coincided with humans coming to this side of Beringia, and this falls between the last two major glacial periods allowing

them to adapt to the changing environment, Eskimo peoples have certainly chosen to adapt to the colder climate, as would also be the case for the Polar Bear

who is so well adapted from its Brown Bear ancestor that it is hard to tell a relationship, although the two still can mate if they so choose.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[WSA]

You can devise all kinds of explanations...but if they don't fit the evidence in front of you, they are not worth a bucket of warm spit. If you want to explain why a hunter in Manitoba in January didn't see what he tells you he saw by citing the climate record for the last 40 millenia, you are not only missing the target as a scientist should define it to be, you are off by about 180 degrees. Still, if it cranks your Allis Chalmers, crack down on it man!  

[SWWASAS]

Lake County, my head is a veritable suppository of knowledge (that is a joke folks) but I did look up some references to support my memory. My main point is that much of what we consider lush tropic forests now, dry up during ice age periods. So much of the earths atmospheric water is tied up in the various ice sheets during ice ages and water that normally cycles from rainfall to evaporation then rain again is taken out of that cycle and frozen into ice. Normal global cyclical weather patterns are drastically effected.

Related to all of this, Dr Meldrum mentioned a relationship between primate populations and tigers in Asia during his Sasquatch Summit presentation. He threw up a map that showed tiger habitat some time ago, I think it was decades ago, and the present tiger habitat. As one would expect the habitat is shrinking dramatically. He overlaid a map of primate habitat and I believe that included sightings of the various Asian crypto primates, and there was a strong congruence. Both are shrinking at similar rates. Human influences, climate change, and other factors constantly affect the habitat even in the lush tropical latitudes. While the situation in North American may not be as critical for BF habitat, the insane growth of the human population in Asia has to be driving many species to extinction for both known and yet to be discovered species.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

So the question I have is why do Sasquatch exist in such a broad range when so many other apes inhabit very specific niches and are extremely vulnerable to 

habitat loss.  I guess this is what makes this creature so interesting and suited to survive, it seems to defy the limitations of other primates and others species

in general.  This ability to adapt to such a variety of environments makes Sasquatch likely to survive the impact we humans are always finding new ways to make

worse.  The cockroach is another amazing example, no offense Patty. Perhaps it will come down to Sasquatch eating the cockroach and the cockroach eating it's

dung, the final symbiotic relationship....well maybe not 

Edited January 13, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[norseman]

Our bipedal ancestors and non ancestors took long walk a bouts as the fossil record shows. We can assume this with cryptid bipedal apes as well. Add to that the ability to be an omnivore? And the world is now laying before your feet......

This is in stark contrast to a quadrupedal ape that really needs unbroken forest to move in, as they are dedicated climbers with a divergent big toe. To make matters worse if your dependent on certain plants, as a herbivore you have really shackled your self to a particular habitat such as the mountain gorilla.

With the rise of the himalaya mountains and the subsequent rain shadow cast over North Africa? No quadrupedal ape is getting out of Africa alive. Which was a different back in the Miocene when Africa was wetter.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Several species of bipedal ape managed to populate huge expanses of land with rudimentary technology or none at all. If one thing defines apes it is plasticity of ecology. Niche expansion is the default for apes in the Homo line and our predecessors (or what we currently know). Nothing seems impossible when you combine acute intelligence with a bipedal mode of transit and clever hands.

[WSA]

I think the reason BF is able to exploit so many varvious ecological niches is the same as those for species like the cockroach, coyote and crow: They are all generalists. How do I know this is a likely explanation? Well, because they have been spotted in those niches, they have left behind other evidence in those niches, and like all animals they have to eat. Very simple deduction, based on observation. It really isn't such a complex thing y'all. We make it so only by substituting our judgment for others who were there, when we were not. It is compounded again by our inability to imagine what we've never seen to be real. That sure will limit the curiosity of a body... quicker than a cat can lick its butt. 

[SWWASAS]

With the rise of the himalaya mountains and the subsequent rain shadow cast over North Africa? No quadrupedal ape is getting out of Africa alive. Which was a different back in the Miocene when Africa was wetter.

Good point. Even early historical times, North Africa and Egypt was much wetter. Over time the deserts have been expanding South.

[Guest DWA]

You can devise all kinds of explanations...but if they don't fit the evidence in front of you, they are not worth a bucket of warm spit. If you want to explain why a hunter in Manitoba in January didn't see what he tells you he saw by citing the climate record for the last 40 millenia, you are not only missing the target as a scientist should define it to be, you are off by about 180 degrees. Still, if it cranks your Allis Chalmers, crack down on it man!  

 

This.  Bigfoot skepticism has set an extremely high bar for dangfoolery by utterly avoiding the Occam explanation of the evidence to take everybody on a ride Alice never saw the equal in Wonderland.

 

Several species of bipedal ape managed to populate huge expanses of land with rudimentary technology or none at all. If one thing defines apes it is plasticity of ecology. Niche expansion is the default for apes in the Homo line and our predecessors (or what we currently know). Nothing seems impossible when you combine acute intelligence with a bipedal mode of transit and clever hands.

 

And this.  Bears got nuthin' on these guys because they can't keep the peepers high enough for long enough (and get down to where the other goodies are more than easily enough as the evidence shows); they don't have the speed or ambush skills for adult large game; and the smarts? Combined with hands?  Forget it.  Niche partitioning to the max.  Never mind all those 'vagrants' at dumpsters that would have been shot off them had they been bears.  Speculation?  Oh yeah.  Scientists engage in this sort of speculation all the time; and you can bank on our finding out retroactively that it's the truth when scientists finally take the blinders off.  Just remember you heard it here first.

 

I think the reason BF is able to exploit so many varvious ecological niches is the same as those for species like the cockroach, coyote and crow: They are all generalists. How do I know this is a likely explanation? Well, because they have been spotted in those niches, they have left behind other evidence in those niches, and like all animals they have to eat. Very simple deduction, based on observation. It really isn't such a complex thing y'all. We make it so only by substituting our judgment for others who were there, when we were not. It is compounded again by our inability to imagine what we've never seen to be real. That sure will limit the curiosity of a body... quicker than a cat can lick its butt. 

 

I have long called sasquatch a 'median ape.' it is actually the most predictable ape there is; all the others are weirdo specialists by comparison.  Who says so?  Thousands of people who would look at you funny if you told them that.  Their reports come together to produce what none of them could:  a major head start on the field biology of an unconfirmed species.  There is no way anything concocted by anyone other than a consortium of very busy world-class scientists - in operation for generations spanning human occupation of the Americas - is gonna do that.

 

No scientist is gonna get me to listen to him  who passes judgment on events for which he was not present, when direct eyewitnesses of sound mind contest his assessment.  Never mind violates his science every single time he opens his mouth.

Edited January 14, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

I propose it didn't get here at all after considering the trek needed to get here. 

 

The other day you said the PGF is real and that they went extinct in the 1970s. Now you are saying the PGF isn't real and they were never in North American to begin with. That's a quick turnaround.

[Guest DWA]

But very typical of bigfoot skepticism, which, like mushrooms, flourishes in the dark.  You'd never see a viewpoint like that in any field science took seriously; it wouldn't survive a day on, say, a physics forum.

 

But that's on scientists.

[SWWASAS]

Are there physics forums? Would be nice to go someplace were evidence means something.

BF habitat range is fairly close to that of humans other than it seems to require woodlands. Not sure if that is need for cover because of it's reclusive nature or because of the presence of deer and elk in woodland settings. Anyone done any demographic studies that associate BF sightings with non wooded settings that have deer present? I am not familiar with Ohio terrain but there seem to be a lot of BF sighting reports there. Perhaps a demographic study there could answer the question if woodland cover is necessary for BF habitat or if the presence of deer is a bigger factor. I think some areas with a lot of farms with corn and other grains have large deer populations and are not forested. Anyone from Ohio on BFF?

Edited January 14, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[WSA]

Randy, I think the deer/BF correlation over most of the observed NA range is so compelling, and comports so easily with what we know of top predators in general, that it seems to be a given that when a BF finds a population of undulates, it has a food source to exploit and the knowledge, skills and other traits to get it done. For me, I would not even entertain the idea of the extinction of the BF species unless it was accompanied by the news that deer were also in serious decline. (Barring some evidence of communicable disease or some other environmental factor) We know deer on the NA continent have never been more plentiful in recorded history, so it is not a large leap to conclude BF are thriving too....at least in the sense they have a better survival rate than when compared to times when deer populations were less. In absolute population numbers, that probably is only a fraction of the deer herd numbers. (Somewhere, if I recall, there is a ratio of predator to prey populations that holds true, all other factors being equal. Have you ever read anything along those lines?)  

 

But to your point, it might not be easy to overlay wooded/non-wooded areas and come up with probabilities of BF populations. As you know I'm sure, deer thrive not so much under canopy, and not so much in open areas, as the edge habitat between the two. I'm not sure you could find any meaningful measurement of the edge habitats. Just a guess on my part that you can't, I've never looked into it.

 

Oh, this might be what I recall:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation

Edited January 14, 2015 by WSA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Are there physics forums? Would be nice to go someplace were evidence means something.

 

Except that  where the bigfoot community shoots itself in the foot is how the need for meaning overshadows the evidence.  The evidence that so many invest heavy meaning into consists of a willy nilly collection of foot print casts, very poor photography evidence and even poorer video evidence.  Add to it a few sounds in the night.  Science did it's thing with the DNA testing we are all painfully aware of.  Whatever is out there is certainly no match for the desire of some to have it out there or need it out there.