A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

^That logic is totally delusional. If the evidence was that solid then it would already be accepted, but it's not.

 

There is no conspiracy, no laziness by science, or any other excuse for it. You're in such a state of denial that the field is at a dead end that you want to blame everyone else for it. Excuses seem to run rampant in every single aspect of this field- from the lack of fossils, bones, specimens, lack of DNA, hair, poop, the inability to capture them on game cams, government cover ups, forestry cover ups, other dimensions, the list goes on and on and on. Now there's excuses for why science won't accept it or the rest of the world for not seeing the light. It's all deflection and blame away from the obvious- that Bigfoot and reality are having a very poor relationship.

 

If you're so confident that it's great evidence then take it to your local university, show the professors and get their opinion. Let us know what they actually tell you. If the believers don't have enough faith to be proactive towards their own cause then that should tell you how rock solid the evidence is right there.

^^^^ For the win

[Guest DWA]

^That logic is totally delusional. If the evidence was that solid then it would already be accepted, but it's not.

 

This logic is totally delusional.  It puts a childlike faith in scientists that the history of science dashes, again and again.

 

There is no conspiracy, no laziness by science, or any other excuse for it. You're in such a state of denial that the field is at a dead end that you want to blame everyone else for it. Excuses seem to run rampant in every single aspect of this field- from the lack of fossils, bones, specimens, lack of DNA, hair, poop, the inability to capture them on game cams, government cover ups, forestry cover ups, other dimensions, the list goes on and on and on. Now there's excuses for why science won't accept it or the rest of the world for not seeing the light. It's all deflection and blame away from the obvious- that Bigfoot and reality are having a very poor relationship.

 

This logic is totally delusional.  It puts a childlike faith in scientists that the history of science dashes, again and again.

 

 

If you're so confident that it's great evidence then take it to your local university, show the professors and get their opinion. Let us know what they actually tell you. If the believers don't have enough faith to be proactive towards their own cause then that should tell you how rock solid the evidence is right there.

 

This logic is totally delusional.  It puts a childlike faith in scientists that the history of science dashes, again and again.

 

But if you read up enough to have a respectable opinion...you'd *know* this.

I LOVE FLAT LOVE! the attitude "If we were informed, we'd change our minds.  But we aren't...so WE'RE RIGHT...!!!"

[Guest Crowlogic]

Well you heard the man  READ READ READ!  Get off the duff and head ye down to the library or local occult book store and bring back a satchel filled with bigfoot publications.  Ok then when you get it all home make some tea and educate yourselves a bit.  Make sure you don't skip anything.  Now then  after you've completed your reading go watch a few documentaries and privately produced videos.  Since you've already spent $$$$ spend some more and buy some of the DVD's researchers sell online.  Please take your time and enjoy the education it's a lively one most of the time.  But after you're about 2/3 through the material you'll begin to notice a few things.  The first thing you'll realize that each an every document leaves you hanging in thin air.  Always more questions than answers.  You'll notice too that nobody ever says anything is conclusively proving the reality of bigfoot.  They all leave themselves an out.  Eventually you'll be able to anticipate the out and that in a sense becomes an education in and of itself.  

Edited July 21, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Bodhi]

^^^ Hilarious!

Edited July 21, 2015 by chelefoot
Removed quote of the previous post above

[southernyahoo]

^That logic is totally delusional. If the evidence was that solid then it would already be accepted, but it's not.

 

There is no conspiracy, no laziness by science, or any other excuse for it. You're in such a state of denial that the field is at a dead end that you want to blame everyone else for it. Excuses seem to run rampant in every single aspect of this field- from the lack of fossils, bones, specimens, lack of DNA, hair, poop, the inability to capture them on game cams, government cover ups, forestry cover ups, other dimensions, the list goes on and on and on. Now there's excuses for why science won't accept it or the rest of the world for not seeing the light. It's all deflection and blame away from the obvious- that Bigfoot and reality are having a very poor relationship.

 

If you're so confident that it's great evidence then take it to your local university, show the professors and get their opinion. Let us know what they actually tell you. If the believers don't have enough faith to be proactive towards their own cause then that should tell you how rock solid the evidence is right there.

 

Is there any accounting of the reviews by science of the evidence?  How many scientists have read the science reports on the evidence like in this link?

 

http://sasquatchresearch.net/vocalizations.html

 

Yes it is always human or not conclusively human with outliers, whether it's tracks, hairs, sounds or video's. The circumstances that one engages the evidence, and it's cogency is what proves it to people one by one, scientists and layperson alike.

 

The conclusions sure look to me like they can rule out all but human often enough to descibe the brute in human form we call bigfoot. 

[Guest DWA]

In all the time I have been talking with people about this topic:  

 

(1) not one scientist pronouncing negatively upon it has produced anything supporting his position that I couldn't tear apart, with contempt, right there, as unbecoming a scientist.

(2) not one bigfoot skeptic has been able to produce same, either.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Is there any accounting of the reviews by science of the evidence?  How many scientists have read the science reports on the evidence like in this link?

 

http://sasquatchresearch.net/vocalizations.html

 

Yes it is always human or not conclusively human with outliers, whether it's tracks, hairs, sounds or video's. The circumstances that one engages the evidence, and it's cogency is what proves it to people one by one, scientists and layperson alike.

 

The conclusions sure look to me like they can rule out all but human often enough to descibe the brute in human form we call bigfoot. 

Good make it human that way anybody can send in human hair and it can become the mysterious bigfootyized human hair.  I've gotta admit Sykes delivered the broadside with both barrels to bigfootism.  Just think Justine the great bigfoot killer is just the bear killer he's always been, but bet he makes a few bucks off of it now.  Sure send in the hair keep sending it in.  Maybe if you post a lookout at the local bigfoot portal  yup you heard it right biggie is going back to inter dimensional magic to avoid having to answer to the skeptics that want to know why there is no bigfoot.  But you see bigfoot is not a corporeal being.  He is from the ether, gee isn't that just one tiny step away from being pure myth.  Keep you ears to the ground and expect to see a lot of bigfoot portal stuff, the new flavor of excuses is arriving to a bigfoot store near you!

In all the time I have been talking with people about this topic:  

 

(1) not one scientist pronouncing negatively upon it has produced anything supporting his position that I couldn't tear apart, with contempt, right there, as unbecoming a scientist.

(2) not one bigfoot skeptic has been able to produce same, either.

Don't you know that a scientist can't say flat out no to very many things?  But it's what they don't say and don't participate in that tells the real story.  

[Guest DWA]

You are surely not telling me that if a scientist doesn't opine on or participate in something, it isn't real?  The entire history of science is one big refutation of that idea.

 

When your opinion on something says to me, "scientist hat very much taken off here," no, you aren't participating, because you are ignorant of the evidence.   And all too frequently, of the way science even works. And oh yeah that tells a real story, one the history of science tells, many times over.

But this is what I mean by 'the fetishization of science:' the blind belief that Scientists Are Just Better Than Us.  Which is almost always wrong, even as regards knowledge.  They know a bit more, generally...about one thing.  A few things, at most.

See, your problem here, Crow, is that you can't contest the mainstream, because you really don't know how to.  You can't address scientists outside your field on science's terms, and it shows over and over in your posts.

Edited July 21, 2015 by DWA

[norseman]

As far as Im concerned we already know that Sasquatch like animals existed in the fossil record, including some that even match the size of the creature.

So then the question becomes thus....... did it ever exist in north America? And does it still exist now? We now know the hobbit existed until very recently.

This is not the same type of subject as say flying purple people eaters and eight headed hydras that have no factual basis in the fossil record.

Do we need proof they are extant? Absolutely!!! My belief is that the primate family tree fossil record will get bushier and broader in range as our knowledge increases.

Just as the Tiblisi Croatia(?) find has pushed our out of Africa theory much further back into history.

If one bipedal ape (us) can walk to north America it logically stands to reason others may have as well.

If a fossil matching something of a hominoid were to be discovered in north America I bet science would sit up a little straighter and be a tad more willing to listen.

Edited July 21, 2015 by norseman

[Bodhi]

As far as Im concerned we already know that Sasquatch like animals existed in the fossil record, including some that even match the size of the creature.

So then the question becomes thus....... did it ever exist in north America? And does it still exist now? We now know the hobbit existed until very recently.

This is not the same type of subject as say flying purple people eaters and eight headed hydras that have no factual basis in the fossil record.

Do we need proof they are extant? Absolutely!!! My belief is that the primate family tree fossil record will get bushier and broader in range as our knowledge increases.

Just as the Tiblisi Croatia(?) find has pushed our out of Africa theory much further back into history.

If one bipedal ape (us) can walk to north America it logically stands to reason others may have as well.

If a fossil matching something of a hominoid were to be discovered in north America I bet science would sit up a little straighter and be a tad more willing to listen.

Is the animal in the fossil record to which you refer Gigantopithecus?

 

My understanding is that the idea of Gigantopithecus being bipedal is still very contested.

The links below point out the reasons why bipedalism is in doubt but I would love links to anything you have that is "pro" bipedal for Gigantopithecus. Thanks.

 

http://retrieverman.net/2012/01/18/why-bigfoot-cannot-be-gigantopithecus/

 

http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/12/28/gigantopithecus-and-crackpot-cryptozoologists/

 

 

http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/12/28/gigantopithecus-and-crackpot-cryptozoologists/

Edited July 21, 2015 by Bodhi

[norseman]

Actually it is still contested, Krantz felt the much wider stance of the jaw V in Giganto was because it made room for a neck which contrasts greatly with a quadrapedal ape.

But there are numerous other candidates which include archaic humans, Im not of that opinion but its not beyond the realm of possibility.

And also just looking at two fossils of Homo Erectus such as Turkana boy vs the Hobbit, look at the contrast in size! Look at a Gibbon vs. a Gorilla? Look at African pygmies vs the Danish?

No matter how much skeptics like to point the finger at how hilarious this myth is? In terms of myths its not a crazy one, its not implausible no matter how much some would like it to be.

Indian masks with pursed lips, sloping foreheads and heavy brow ridges make me believe that there at least WAS something out there. Indians should not know the facial features of an ape, and yet they carved them out of cedar for a very long time. The people of Flores told stories of the Ebu Gogo too or little wild men of the woods. No one is laughing now.

[Bodhi]

Actually it is still contested, Krantz felt the much wider stance of the jaw V in Giganto was because it made room for a neck which contrasts greatly with a quadrapedal ape.

But there are numerous other candidates which include archaic humans, Im not of that opinion but its not beyond the realm of possibility.

And also just looking at two fossils of Homo Erectus such as Turkana boy vs the Hobbit, look at the contrast in size! Look at a Gibbon vs. a Gorilla? Look at African pygmies vs the Danish?

No matter how much skeptics like to point the finger at how hilarious this myth is? In terms of myths its not a crazy one, its not implausible no matter how much some would like it to be.

Indian masks with pursed lips, sloping foreheads and heavy brow ridges make me believe that there at least WAS something out there. Indians should not know the facial features of an ape, and yet they carved them out of cedar for a very long time. The people of Flores told stories of the Ebu Gogo too or little wild men of the woods. No one is laughing now.

There are all sort of variations within species and between species more so, certainly. I suppose looking at the fossil record for potential progenitors is a bit tricky at this point but I did want to get some clarification on your point about a sasquatch type creature being in the fossil record. If I'm understanding you, your point was that there are a number of possible animals? 

 

Regarding differences in size, I think generally that environmental factors will lead to increases or decreases in size in successive generations as shown in numerous places around the world. I mention that to ask this: Are you speculating that there was some environmental factor here in North America which would have allowed a smaller ape(?) species to evolve into a larger sized animal?

Edited July 21, 2015 by Bodhi

[norseman]

I'll answer your question with another.

If all ape species evolved in Africa? Do you think Gigantopethicus started its jouney looking as it did when we find it in the fossil record in Asia? The great apes still extant today are seperated by millions of years. Check me here but Human to Chimp is like four million years and chimp to orang is something like 12 million years.

also Lucy is our direct ancestor and her kind were roughly four feet tall.

And yes i think there are a number of candidates that could be the ancestor to a north American hominoid.

[norseman]

http://archive.archaeology.org/0001/newsbriefs/georgia.html

its georgia and not croatia

[Bodhi]

I completely agree, environmental factors/pressures would/could cause massive changes. With that in mind I think that the field of possibles is so broad that to suggest that sasquatch like animals existed in the fossil record is a little.....premature.

Assuming that sasquatch is a flesh and blood creature, I suppose there has to be a fossil relative out there somewhere but what does that really mean?

 

You mentioned: "As far as Im concerned we already know that Sasquatch like animals existed in the fossil record, including some that even match the size of the creature.

So then the question becomes thus....... did it ever exist in north America? And does it still exist now? We now know the hobbit existed until very recently."

 

If you weren't referring specifically to Gigantopithecus, which is the only one I know of anywhere near the correct size, to what were you referring? I'm unclear on what would make a possible fossil relative sasquatch like, are you thinking size or diet or range?

 

Also, supposing that the animal crossed the land-bridge why is it that no fossils/bones of sasquatch have ever been found from the Great Pleistocene Die-Off 13,000 years ago?

 

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/pleistocene.htm

 

That has always bothered me. I had forgotten about it but as I was watching some show about a group of mammoths which had perished during the time period I started wondering why no sasquatch bones were found from the period. Considering that all or almost all the other mega fauna died out during that time I would have expected that at least some bones would have been found from a sasquatch or at least a close relative of sasquatch.

 

Anyway, thanks for the discussion on possible fossil relatives.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Bodhi