If Bigfoot Were Real.

[MIB]

49 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

Appreciate that. I might say my assumptions are no more whacky than the contortions some are going thru to attempt to explain the utter lack of physical remains. Stop bye sometime to view my shed collection. Someone claimed how rare sheds are. Talk of being off track.

 

I have no issue with that, I'd agree ... deer sheds are pretty common.    That misses part of the point I tried to make.   How many bigfoots should we assume are in Oregon just for the purposes of doing faux-math?   Maybe 200?    If they live 40 years on average, how many die each year?   5?    Oregon has just passed 4 million people.   How many dead bodies are found, outside of populated areas, other than during a formal search for the body so that someone just randomly finds someone not known to be missing?   A dozen?  Two dozen?    See the proportions / scaling issue relative to assumption someone should just stumble over one?   

 

Think about burial situations.   To be buried there has to be someone to do the burying.   If they do bury at all, it implies some sort of social structure.   In that sort of setting, it's less likely the very young or very old would be out alone.   Those are the most likely to die.   Those who did venture out alone would be the most healthy, most fit, least likely to die other than by accident.   

 

Even without burial, the numbers available to find are very low, and with burial, it drops to near nothing in a hurry, only accidental death of the most fit, most capable.    A place risky for a bigfoot for accidental death might be pretty risky for us, too, reducing the number of people who might go there to find a body.   (Agree?  Disagree?)

 

In other words, without burial, the number of bigfoots to find dead is low.   If they do bury their dead, that number drops to .. 1 a year n my whole state maybe?    And probably in a place nobody would be to look?

 

This doesn't take weird "logic", it doesn't take "woo", it just takes understanding the numbers involved, the behaviors of people, then clearly thinking through the problem without preconceived ideas interfering. 

 

MIB

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

If you can find Australopithecus or Homo Erectus burying their dead perhaps.

Some say Homo Naledi where but I doubt it.

 

Animals eat skeletons, they weather away, and are gone in no time.

They have to be buried quickly under ideal circumstances or in a dry cave and then you have a chance.

Mountainous forests that are acidiferous are the least ideal as the acids leach the bones and so even internment will not preserve the bone as a fossil. That is the reason advanced most often as to why there are no BF bones.

 

If the bone where found they might get attributed to an extinct genus or species if not preserved so that an archeologist can date the matrix.

 

Another reason is the animal is so rare.

 

If they live and die in caves then finding the right caves might be the key.

 

Other possibilities are finding deposits of the right age that preserve fossils and there are a lot of fossil deposits out in the Western US just not many of the correct age. La Brea Tar Pits are an example but Bigfoot may have not lived on a valley floor.

 

High altitude lava tube caves might be where to go.

An untrained researched might just wind up destroying and important site though and there are likely laws involved.

 

On final option is that bones have been discovered but incorrectly attributed as modern man.

 

I know of one skeleton in South America that was found in a cave and is around 22,000 years old that is unusual and has unusual robustness including Neanderthal like ribs and this information was from an archeological science book and not a youtube woo woo or some such.

 

In those cases look for a skull with a receding forehead, massive jaw, and a large occipital bun with large brow ridges. Perhaps some of the theorized "giants" skeletons from modern media fit into that classification,

Edited July 28, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

A pre-human skull found in 2005 in the ground at the medieval village Dmanisi, Georgia.

[guyzonthropus]

With the tar pits, perhaps they figured out what was occurring at the site and realized the danger despite the potential rewards. Or they found a way to extract themselves or each other unlike the other creatures trapped by the tar...

 

I don't recall if they've found human remains from actually within the pits themselves, but humans must have frequented the area and witnessed what was happening, hopefully to figure out the means by which to effectively utilize the resource, though the abundance of predators attracted to the site may have proven inhibitory.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

The answer as to whether or not BF buried their own dead relies on, IMO, two seperate things. First, the intelligence of the species, and second, how advanced their social structure is. BF is clearly one of the more intelligent animals in the woods, but for information into social structures, it seems habituators may have the most knowledge. 

 

As usual, just my opinion.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The lack of skeletal evidence is indeed a conundrum, but it does not negate all the other evidence, but it might point to the rarity of these creatures.

Maybe the optimistic numbers we hear bantered about are far out of proportion, many things could be explained if these creatures are extremely rare, say only several thousand in North America, that is a very small number, but what if it is even less, than they must be on the verge of extinction. Put the two together, extreme elusiveness, and very small numbers, and it might better explain the difficulties researchers have encountered,

Edited July 28, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Lake County Bigfooot]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 1:45 PM, Cisco said:

We have no legitimate evidence and that's very odd, considering the quantity of witness reports that occur on a daily basis. This puts me in an uncomfortable position as a "would be believer" as my emotional desire for them to be real is becoming overshadowed by the simple reality that we have no real evidence.

 

 

Legitimate evidence, hmmm, I am quite convinced that certain footprint casts are legitimate. Other creatures have been discovered simply by footprints.....and of course eyewitness reports, and perhaps an 8mm film, but personal experience is the best kind of evidence, and were it not for some instances in my experience I would not even be here, no chance in ****. But I understand the desire to believe in these creatures, it stems from our desire to believe in the still undiscovered, because so much of life is mundane and constant. That is not what I am talking about here, I am talking cold hard facts, footprints, and legitimate eyewitnesses, many very qualified to identify something unusual, that is not going away...it can't...because it is true.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

3 hours ago, SquatchinNY said:

The answer as to whether or not BF buried their own dead relies on, IMO, two seperate things. First, the intelligence of the species, and second, how advanced their social structure is. BF is clearly one of the more intelligent animals in the woods, but for information into social structures, it seems habituators may have the most knowledge. 

 

As usual, just my opinion.

Intelligence is related to brains size and we only started burying our dead relatively recently it is thought.

Due to the skull configuration of a Bigfoot the brain size is less than half of modern man, more consistent with Australopithecine hominids of which no evidence of burials exist. 

 

Would still make them the second smartest land animal though.

 

Perhaps had not developed the advanced abstract metaphysical thinking that burials represent. (unless you go with the public sanitation explanation).

 

Many different types of burials though, incineration, cannibalism, sky burial, etc.

 

Lacking shovels they probably did not do what we consider a burial even if they did have that function for the group.

 

Another thought is that they are not likely socially complex which may be another requirement. Only a couple of unsubstantiated reports of large groups of Bigfoot from the prehistoric (Indian) past.

 

A few exceptions would prove the rule at any rate.

 

Of course if they come by flying saucers or portals anything is possible. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[MIB]

8 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Intelligence is related to brains size and we only started burying our dead relatively recently it is thought.

Due to the skull configuration of a Bigfoot the brain size is less than half of modern man, more consistent with Australopithecine hominids of which no evidence of burials exist.

 

Both unsupportable and plain ol' wrong.   It's not just size, it is organization of, and connectedness of, the various lobes.    The brain size appears to be about 1.3 times yours, it's the proportions that are different.  

 

MIB

 

Edited July 28, 2016 by MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

21 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Both unsupportable and plain ol' wrong.   It's not just size, it is organization of, and connectedness of, the various lobes.    The brain size appears to be about 1.3 times yours, it's the proportions that are different.  

 

MIB

 

I don't know where you come up with that as a bigfoot has a relatively small head and thick skull, receding forehead, etc. Smaller especially in proportion to body size much more like primitive hominids and much more unlike the biggest brained hominid (man).

 

Just the receding forehead and large occipital bun also means they have a more primitive brain, less modern brain (frontal cortex) and larger primitive old brain (cerebellum). All pointing to a more primitive and therefore smaller and less human organized brain. Less abstract thought, less language ability, less social, less organized, less technological.

 

All well supported in the fossil record. Animals don't all of a suddenly defy their genus and leapfrog suddenly ahead or more advanced species (complex) using more primitive structures in the evolutionary scheme of things. Just not supported by the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years.

 

This explains why Bigfoot is more fearful, engages in dominance displays, and reflexive in behavior.

 

Another words more reptilian.

 

We chase him with cameras and jeeps, he chases us with sticks and rocks.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[hiflier]

John Green database: 55 reports of more than two, sexes unknown, and 16 reports claiming groups of large and small creatures together.

 

And there are those here who have reported more than one. There's no way to determine how many (if any) others may have been hiding close by. I can see the statement that they may not be socially complex but they certainly do seem to have some close social contact in some form. At least what could be considered social from a low population.   

Edited July 28, 2016 by hiflier

[salubrious]

19 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

I honestly find deer skeletons regularly. Why wouldn't I?

 

A lot depends on the environment. For example in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey the soil is so acidic that you usually have about a week before no trace of the skeleton exists if it is not scattered (and often even if it is) by scavengers. This is true in many forested environments.

 

2 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Intelligence is related to brains size and we only started burying our dead relatively recently it is thought.

Due to the skull configuration of a Bigfoot the brain size is less than half of modern man, more consistent with Australopithecine hominids of which no evidence of burials exist. 

 

 

 

OK- clearly you are holding out on the rest of the BF community You seem to know more about the brain size than most... Do you have a skull? Can you post a photo?

[MIB]

3 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I don't know where you come up with that as a bigfoot has a relatively small head and thick skull, receding forehead, etc. Smaller especially in proportion to body size much more like primitive hominids and much more unlike the biggest brained hominid (man).

 

Show me.   BFH's very clear extracts of frames 362 and 364 from the PGF seem to make your statement entirely nonsensical.    Show me a clearer picture, not a fuzzy one you can misdraw on to your heart's misleading content.

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

45 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Show me.   BFH's very clear extracts of frames 362 and 364 from the PGF seem to make your statement entirely nonsensical.    Show me a clearer picture, not a fuzzy one you can misdraw on to your heart's misleading content.

 

MIB

Perhaps you have an intelligent counter argument?

2 hours ago, salubrious said:

 

A lot depends on the environment. For example in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey the soil is so acidic that you usually have about a week before no trace of the skeleton exists if it is not scattered (and often even if it is) by scavengers. This is true in many forested environments.

 

 

OK- clearly you are holding out on the rest of the BF community You seem to know more about the brain size than most... Do you have a skull? Can you post a photo?

I've posted photos of hominid skulls or you can look them up, you have the P-G film.

Measure the proportions, that would be the scientific approach.

Perhaps Dr. Meldrum can help you with your quest for knowledge.

Nothing I've said that he would have any problem with.

But then you will probably just wind up dissing him as well.

 

Or am I mistaken in thinking you don't care for intelligent discussion but more in ad hominem attacks?

Or is it just me or the anonymous nature of message boards?

 

I feed the trolls but then I spank them with rocks.

Me and my buddy bigfoot are good like that.

[MIB]

12 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Perhaps you have an intelligent counter argument?

I've posted photos of hominid skulls or you can look them up, you have the P-G film.

 

Perhaps you have the intelligence to understand a counter-argument?   (Perhaps not.)

 

I've already given you examples ... look at frames 362 and 364.   Show me the sloping forehead.   That's all it takes.   If you can't, your whole schtick about Australopithecine hominids is irrelevant to a discussion of bigfoot.    I see nothing similar to the pictures of the skulls you've offered in the PGF.  

 

MIB