If Bigfoot Were Real.

[salubrious]

55 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Good stuff, LCB. And yet there's that nagging issue with zilch in the way of fossil evidence, physical remains, or that body on a slab. A perplexing conundrum.

 

I don't agree that there is not fossil evidence. Science being what it is, as anyone in the sciences knows, theories can be dropped in favor of more effective theories.

 

An example is the T Rex, which, when I was a kid, was a cold-blooded creature that stood very upright and dragged its tail. In a few decades, it had become warm-blooded and speedy killer that kept its tail in the air as it moved.

 

I think we have fossil evidence but don't know that such is the case, and have simply identified it as something else.

[hiflier]

51 minutes ago, salubrious said:

 

....Science being what it is, as anyone in the sciences knows, theories can be dropped in favor of more effective theories....

 Well said. And I think that is exactly what we should do here. In a way it IS what we but sometimes the resources necessary to do the follow ups are either underfunded or too far away from target areas or to implement new ideas for discovery. IMHO that is the nut to crack but who has the time or money to crack it? Careful perusing of the Forums threads and members may help to answer that but since by and large we really don't know each other few feel comfortable helping launch a study.

Edited July 25, 2016 by hiflier

[MIB]

Even as a proponent,  I am curious about the seeming lack of fossil evidence ... and a few other things.   However, as a knower, not a believer, that has no bearing on the question of existence ... it's a question of "how", not "whether."    Lot of possibilities.   I don't have any great confidence in any of them ... but then, I don't need it.   Since I know what I'm looking for is out there, I'm just trying to find it **again**, I can save such questions for later instead of letting them get in the way of searching.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

I can't tell thousands of observers who must be primatologists working together if they're all lying, or psychics channeling primatologists if they're all mistaken, that the thing they saw isn't real because we haven't found a fossil for it yet (because we haven't looked, A, and because there have likely been finds that didn't come to the general light of day, B...and as a matter of fact B does appear the case).

 

The deer I have seen are real, and it's beyond absurd to tell me they are because, well, we have fossils (and do we have fossils of the direct evolutionary line of the whitetail deer?  I know, right, doesn't matter).

Edited July 25, 2016 by DWA

[norseman]

On July 5, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Incorrigible1 said:

For such a massive creature, they seem to leave the biological indicators of a church mouse. Their food-gathering requirements should leave beaucoups telltale sign, and be a dead giveaway to their presence. No wonder some are tempted by thoughts of portals and dimension-jumping. It's the only way to explain away the lack of biological indicators.

 

Or they are confused with a known animal.

[Guest DWA]

My brother and a companion, in West Virginia, once came across a grove of saplings torn up to hell...by something.  They *presumed* bear.  But my brother didn't think sasquatch was real.  And bear don't tend to do that.  Apes...do.

 

Evidence left by large apes in the temperate zone is gonna be different from that left by large apes in the tropics.  This also can't be used to dismiss the sightings; that isn't any more logical than using the lack of fossils (that we haven't found ...yet).  It's a presumption made without evidence (actually, with evidence that debunks it).

Edited July 25, 2016 by DWA

[BigTreeWalker]

21 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Or they are confused with a known animal.

Most likely bears with their omnivore behavior and cougars on the predatory side. I wonder how many people could find evidence of bears or cougars feeding as well? There are quite a few of them out there. 

 

This is also in reference to Incorrigible 1's comment which I can't seem to get a quote on. 

[MikeZimmer]

 

Lake Country Bigfoot, please stop making so much sense. You might give a few folks conniptions.

[FarArcher]

On 6/28/2016 at 10:14 AM, Crowlogic said:

If bigfoot were real this paragraph would never have needed to be written.

 

"I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalisations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the contention that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped."

 

The problem with this guy's argument that"it is a sociocultural phenomenon" is that cultures separated by continents and millennia seem to all be having the same "sociocultural phenomenon."

 

I wish he'd have been with me a while back.  He'd have soiled himself from a "sociocultural phenomenon."

On 7/23/2016 at 2:03 AM, Incorrigible1 said:

Cameras seem to ward off the soiling oneself phenomenon. Let me guess: Worked in your instance, too.

 

 

 

Yet again, you guess wrong.

 

But hey, you're on a roll.

[Guest DWA]

Sociocultural phenomena also don't jump cultures.  Whites and Native Americans have completely separate mythologies; the Venn diagram shows no intersection.

 

Yet many in both cultures assert that sasquatch is real.  No "religious conversions" are going on.  People are just seeing the same thing.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The bones, well that is easy, because we know that that this type of forest will decay bones at a rapid rate and that the small animals not only eat the bone but scatter them as well. Try to find the remains of any elusive animal, such as a cougar which I would deem far more common, and you will be hard pressed to produce a skeleton. Or even a bear, which is indeed common. The fact is the acidic nature of such environments lends itself to a rapid decay of the skeletal remains. Now I diverge, couple this with the possibility that this creature is intelligent enough to bury their dead. If the creature understands that its existence is predicated on not being discovered, it very well could take measures to ensure it is not. This is not to great a leap for even an animal to develop such an instinct, as whatever niche an animal finds to survive will control the development of its instincts, and that might be exactly the case here.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Incorrigible1]

Come now. Skeletal remains are not all that uncommon. Except for the big guy, that is.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[MIB]

Not entirely true.   Black bear remains generally are seldom found just lying around.   As I've said, I grew up in a bear preserve.   We had MANY bears and a few big cats ... cougar and bobcat.   However, if you just took a walk around a random hillside, you'd be FAR more likely to find cat skeletal remains than bear skeletal remains.   If all you had to go on was bone finds, you'd think black bear are about as rare as bigfoot.   Not the case.   The reason for this is their near-death behavior.   Cats seem to lay up in places where they can see around them when sick ... little knobs and open-ish hillsides.   Bears, on the other hand, seem to crawl into the deepest, thickest brush around for cover.   It reflects the defensive orientation of their kind ... some "see and flee", others "hide".  

 

In the years I lived there, I never found a single bear skeleton that didn't have a bullet hole in it.   The ones that died of natural causes did so in concealed locations.  

 

We don't know what bigfoot's habits are when deathly ill,  suffering organic breakdown at end of life, etc.   It might be interesting to read up on great apes ... I haven't so I don't know what you'd find.  Just thinking out loud.   We don't USUALLY find human remains just lying around, either.   Only those of people who die alone and by accident.   If you and I were walking down the street and you had a heart attack and died, I wouldn't just walk off leaving you there while I went for a latte.   If BF is the human megafauna I think they are, the situation may be the same with them, same treatment and respect for their dead.

 

It's just a guess, but as I've said, I know they exist, I've seen them.    But .. I haven't found their skeletal remains.   Must be a reason.   I'm not automatically assuming some woo thing like I guess I'm supposed to according to scoftic agenda, I'm looking at the documented habits of the only proven natural biped ... us.   It may not be the right answer but it's absolutely an option that has not been shown to be false yet. 

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

^^^As a partial answer:  even with concerted long-term search it is all but impossible to find chimp remains.

[SWWASAS]

Lack of remains lying around means interment to me.     Several primates including man,  do something with remains.   A creature that hides from man when it is alive and  is very careful about not leaving footprints,   is not going to let uncle Ugg die and just leave him laying there to be found, decay, and reveal the presence of the tribe to anyone passing by.