Active Proponents Do You Really Think Bigfoot Is Practically Everywhere?

[JDL]

Perhaps the fact that we have living breathing chimps negates the need for fossils to prove they exist, thus no leg pulling needed.....just saying.  

 

On a side note, I always fill my tires with helium so that when filled with 35lbs they weigh much less, easier on the back that way   

 

I just use Flubber - the Fred MacMurray kind.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

As regards to why tons of Bigfoot fossils as opposed to chimps.

 

There are, in Africa, if you accept an Australopithecus provenance (a big if).

In the PNW the acid and wet conditions would not let fossils form.

 

Fossils form in deserts and not in forests.

 

That is why there are a lot of hominid fossils in Africa at certain (drier) periods.

This is why there are large gaps in the fossil record.

 

Fossils of higher animals are usually pretty rare, look at how few hominid fossils have been found.

And they were a lot more populous that the elusive NA Bigfoot.

 

If you want to improve your chances do an archaeological dig in the floors of PNW lava tube caves. 

 

Or in caves in drier regions surrounding the PNW, or where there were historic reports of BF living in them.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

Not much sediment to dig in the bottom of those lava tubes. Maybe find a mummified bigfoot in them. But considering they have a lot of the tubes located and mapped, not much chance of that. Might have more luck in the few limestone caves in the region. Now ash deposits along streams eroding would be a good place to look, as SWWSP has mentioned before.

Edited April 8, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

My question is have they found anything yet as many promising caves likely get investigated by anthropologists for human habitation.

Odd skulls, long fore limbs, robust skeletons?

An archaeology site did produce a skeletal fossils with what appeared to be a mix of Neanderthal and Sapiens about 22,000 years old in South America.

[BigTreeWalker]

They've found evidence of human habitation in some of the basalt caves in the sides of the coulees in eastern Washington.

[FarArcher]

 

 

 

Toss in that reports come in from all over the world, over centuries by different cultures and peoples, separated even by continents, any sane, rational, prudent person would acknowledge there must be a significant amount of truth to be found in these narratives and reports.

 

 

All those reports and yet no proof. Perhaps it is the reports that should be found lacking.

 

 

Well, no chimpanzee skeleton fossils are found either.

 

I'm sure that the Chinese, Tibetans, Southeast Asians, Europeans, and North Americans over the past 500 years all got together and decided they'd just pull everyone's leg.

 

Perhaps skeptics are too dense to consider the body of evidence.  

 

I once had a guy tell me that thirty-five pound of air in a tire weighed 35 pounds.  Even after explaining it was psi exerted on the tire, he remained unconvinced.

 

He really wasn't interested in knowing diddly squat.

 

You mention chimpanzee skeletons a lot. Yes, they are restricted to fairly narrow geographical ranges. Yet you also mention reports from all over the world. In that case, it would seem odd some form of fossil evidence is not available.

 

I say again, perhaps it is something about the report system, or a penchant for humans to report giant, hairy hominids that aren't there. But if reports come from everywhere, their remains should be far more common than those of chimpanzees.

 

 

 

I'll be simple.  No chimpanzee fossils - but chimpanzees are plentiful.  Any argument that there are no BF fossils, therefore BF doesn't exist is just ludicrous.  0 = 0.  Zero chimp fossils, zero BF fossils.  

 

Yes, we have BF reports, narratives, descriptions, drawings, paintings, tapestries, and carvings - from all around the world - for centuries.  Nothing is wrong with the "report system."  Hallucinations are individual events - not a series of identical, collective narratives and renderings from most every culture over written history.

 

One other thing reported multiple times is that BF don't abandon their dead, but collect them to their own purpose. I have seen a couple reports of the BF in the process of burying their dead.  That would certainly make them a bit more difficult to find.

 

Chimps don't bury their dead, and yet we still can't find chimp fossils.  Not one climate/terrain on earth is constant - so chimp fossils should be available somewhere that used to be jungle.  But they're not.

[Incorrigible1]

Enjoy your cake.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I'll be simple.  No chimpanzee fossils - but chimpanzees are plentiful.  Any argument that there are no BF fossils, therefore BF doesn't exist is just ludicrous.  0 = 0.  Zero chimp fossils, zero BF fossils.  

 

The first chimpanzee fossils were found in 2005 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html 

[FarArcher]

Weren't those teeth of a primitive relative of the chimp - and not positively identified?  (The link doesn't pull for me)

 

They were teeth I think that were first identified to be chimp-like teeth, but on further examination by others were found to be uncertain?

 

Since I can't get the link, I'm going off memory here.

[Twist]

Try this Archer,

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html

[norseman]

Toss in that reports come in from all over the world, over centuries by different cultures and peoples, separated even by continents, any sane, rational, prudent person would acknowledge there must be a significant amount of truth to be found in these narratives and reports.

 

All those reports and yet no proof. Perhaps it is the reports that should be found lacking.

 

Well, no chimpanzee skeleton fossils are found either.

 

I'm sure that the Chinese, Tibetans, Southeast Asians, Europeans, and North Americans over the past 500 years all got together and decided they'd just pull everyone's leg.

 

Perhaps skeptics are too dense to consider the body of evidence.  

 

I once had a guy tell me that thirty-five pound of air in a tire weighed 35 pounds.  Even after explaining it was psi exerted on the tire, he remained unconvinced.

 

He really wasn't interested in knowing diddly squat.

You mention chimpanzee skeletons a lot. Yes, they are restricted to fairly narrow geographical ranges. Yet you also mention reports from all over the world. In that case, it would seem odd some form of fossil evidence is not available.

 

I say again, perhaps it is something about the report system, or a penchant for humans to report giant, hairy hominids that aren't there. But if reports come from everywhere, their remains should be far more common than those of chimpanzees.

 

 

I'll be simple.  No chimpanzee fossils - but chimpanzees are plentiful.  Any argument that there are no BF fossils, therefore BF doesn't exist is just ludicrous.  0 = 0.  Zero chimp fossils, zero BF fossils.  

 

Yes, we have BF reports, narratives, descriptions, drawings, paintings, tapestries, and carvings - from all around the world - for centuries.  Nothing is wrong with the "report system."  Hallucinations are individual events - not a series of identical, collective narratives and renderings from most every culture over written history.

 

One other thing reported multiple times is that BF don't abandon their dead, but collect them to their own purpose. I have seen a couple reports of the BF in the process of burying their dead.  That would certainly make them a bit more difficult to find.

 

Chimps don't bury their dead, and yet we still can't find chimp fossils.  Not one climate/terrain on earth is constant - so chimp fossils should be available somewhere that used to be jungle.  But they're not.

Something else for you to consider is that we may have Cryptid primate fossils but simply call them something different.

[FarArcher]

Try this Archer,

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html

 

Thanks.

 

I know what I was trying to recall - first they were excited to find the first chimpanzee fossils - ever.  That's a big discovery as they lament the absence of chimp fossils.

 

They found three teeth.  

 

The exact words are "The fossil teeth are very similar to the teeth of modern chimpanzees."  Didn't say "identical," but "very similar" and that will come into play a bit later.

 

Apparently someone just successfully sequenced the chimp DNA in 2005, the same time this discovery/article was written?

 

Problem is, Evolutionary Biologists say the DNA sequence can be used to verify that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor five million years ago, while Paleoanthropologists, by suggesting these teeth are chimps - shoots the Evolutionary Biologists idea in the foot, as these fossils and homo fossils were found in the same strata.  

 

In other words, we can't have evolved from a common ancestor 5,000,000 years ago if chimps lived alongside homos 500,000 years ago.  Per the experts, not me.

 

Worse, these teeth of either a proto-chimpanzee or chimpanzee - found alongside homo fossils - were dated at 500,000 years ago.  Or, should I say "worser."

 

These guys have more problems than an one-armed paper hanger.

 

I just found the quote I was recalling:  McBreaty and Jablonski report in Nature say so far it's impossible to say whether the teeth belong to the same species as modern chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, or to some unnamed, now extinct ancestor. "It wouldn't surprise me if there are lots of extinct chimpanzee species," says McBreaty.

 

So now they're fudging their findings a bit, and the lead article was a bit misleading and a bit premature.  You'd think after nine years, something would be more definitive.  

Edited April 8, 2016 by FarArcher

[Guest gershake]

Mountain Gorillas have a population of like 800.

I find it very hard to believe that with 12000 of them out in north American forests that we cannot produce a body.......scat, something that tells us this creature exists.

Fair enough, but something else to be considered is that mountain gorillas only live in a tiny geographical range while bigfoot sightings are reported from all across North America.

[JDL]

I think that the most likely candidate for either bigfoot, or a bigfoot antecessor is Homo Heidelbergesis, which lived in Africa, Europe and Asia.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

 

Though first identified in 1907, Heidelbergensis was not fully accepted until much later.  Most Heidelbergensis fossils have only been found within the last 19 years.  Recall that the Patterson video is thirty years older than this.

 

According to researchers they were tall and robust: "According to Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand, numerous fossil bones indicate some populations of Heidelbergensis were 'giants' routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall...."​

 

Heidelbergenis was thought to be homo only in that they had human dentition (canines that are human rather than fang-like).  Heidelbergensis jaws were larger than human and lacked a human chin.  Though bigfoot are commonly portrayed as having fangs, this is not the case based on the majority of descriptions.

 

The original species descriptions states:  "Even the scholar should not be blamed if he would only reluctantly accept it as human...."

 

Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Sapiens are both evolved from Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalensis is evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis according the Wikipedia article.

Edited April 8, 2016 by JDL

[norseman]

Its possible, although they are associated with stone tool manufacture. Meganthropus was a lot closer to the Americas.

Is this illustration similar to 60's Bigfoot ones?

Edited April 8, 2016 by norseman