Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I would love to see a scientific inquiry. Of course that would including collecting a specimen. In other words . Shoot him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 21, 2016 Admin Share Posted August 21, 2016 Right. My guess is that science does not believe that any ape made it here other than homo. But I think the hobbit perked their interest in SE Asia. And then there is the mythology and hoaxing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I agree with them. Not likely to exist here. I think there is probably enough evidence for an inquiry. I have said there is no fossil record here, but I have since been corrected by my scientific friends. they have explained to me that just because none have been found does not mean they do not exist. We have only scratched the surface so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 21, 2016 Admin Share Posted August 21, 2016 If they get around as well as people say they do? Probably no reason they as we could have walked here. i think it's probably already represented in the fossil record but just not in North America. our understanding of hominid radiation out of Africa is in its infancy. some think the hobbit is too primitive to be a Pygmy homo erectus......if true, radiation could be millions of years old and not 500,000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) Consistency is the mark of the scientifically inclined; can't help that. Really unusual, this topic on which people calling themselves scientists fail to understand what proof is; what evidence is; and how scientists think. And believe that waving everything aside with assumptions that don't even touch upon the evidence suffices. Nice fellow? Has some good points? READ HIM. No skeptic shows an ounce of scientific inclination. Bindernagel is WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. Get acquainted with a scientist. Edited August 21, 2016 by DWA to pound relentlessly at oddly unscientific frames of mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted August 21, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted August 21, 2016 This fossil thing keeps rearing its ugly head. I do not think anyone doubts the existence of humans in North America before we started arriving on boats. Yet there are no known (accepted by science) fossils of humans in North America. To expect fossils of BF or it's ancestors in North America presupposes that BF are indigenous and their evolutionary development happened solely on this continent. Like humans, I expect BF walked here during one of the ice ages, and have not been present long enough to get caught in some calamity and buried with the 100's of thousands of years in the right conditions to form fossilized bone. So just like humans, we would not expect to find fossils of BF in North America either. However bone is a different story. Certain conditions may have preserved BF bone. With the climate warming, it would not be a completely unreasonable approach to spend time in glaciated mountains looking at what is melting out of the glaciers. But we are talking about serious mountain climbing for the most part to do that. Mt St Helens requires permits to climb and lost most of its glaciers in the 1980 eruption. The Iceman in the alps was found that way melting out of a glacier. Peat bogs can also preserve bone and flesh because of lack of oxygen. But like fossils these special conditions are very rare and so a find would be even more rare. If BF inters their dead, perhaps conditions high in the mountains would preserve bone. The acidic soil of the PNW does not extend above the tree line. Internment in a talus slope high in the mountains above the tree line would likely preserve the bones for millennia. Maybe BF knows that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 21, 2016 Admin Share Posted August 21, 2016 There are no fossils of humans in North America? Run that by me again? First thing that pops into my mind is Kenniwick man. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted August 21, 2016 Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2016 Fossils ... ugly head ... yes. And it is something that has to be accounted for eventually but that may not happen 'til after discovery is official. We had proof of chimps long before we had fossils of chimps. I'm not so inclined to look for high altitude burial, deliberate or otherwise. There isn't a lot of food up there so a BF in those locations was probably traveling through, not living there. An older, unhealthy one probably couldn't get up there to die and be buried. Unless they're packing their dead a long ways for burial, I think low elevation burials are more likely. Lahars which travel a long distance from the mountain source remain good candidate areas to look because anything caught in the stream bottom, even miles from the mountain, could be killed and buried. The lower Toutle and Cowlitz rivers from Mt St Helens, the Sandy River from Mt Hood, and maybe the upper Rogue from Mt Mazama would be places to look. Some places with very heavy ash-fall could hold fossilized remains, however, accessibility is an issue if they're under 30-50 feet, or more, of ash. It's a needle in a haystack search. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I guess when we are talking about that funny little FUNDING word that keeps staying so far from this topic, I'm not exactly inclined to go out hat in hand with 'I want to search for bigfoot burial sites.' I would want to put together what's already been laid on the table, and show how that can be compellingly followed up. There is a distressing tendency in this field to try to figure out "why no one ever sees one." And to go right out of the other side of one's mouth, 'sightings are hearsay and useless." And right back to, "here's another goofy reason why no one ever ever sees one." Unless one can do what Big Tree Walker did with carcass evidence? Or find a Homo naledi lookalike site? Dry hole. Follow EVIDENCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 12 hours ago, DWA said: Consistency is the mark of the scientifically inclined; can't help that. Really unusual, this topic on which people calling themselves scientists fail to understand what proof is; what evidence is; and how scientists think. And believe that waving everything aside with assumptions that don't even touch upon the evidence suffices. Nice fellow? Has some good points? READ HIM. No skeptic shows an ounce of scientific inclination. Bindernagel is WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. Get acquainted with a scientist. I have read him. Kind of reminds me of you. He proclaims the creature exists based on evidence ,but says his peers wont accept it because they consider it tabloid. Never saw the creature but, has collected foot prints . Claims to have heard them. Nothing compelling at all about any of that. Consistently being wrong is not very scientific at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) Consistently being wrong is something you should be able to demonstrate. Go. If the only thing that compels you is proof...um, you aren't a scientist. I mean, if you're OK with that...you know he lays out copious details in his books. His case is undeniable, but of course deniers are pros. You did read the books...right...? Edited August 22, 2016 by DWA To belabor those in need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 I did and rather enjoyed it. Good evidence compels me. Proof convinces me. His opinions and so called evidence is no better or worse than others. 1963 is a long time to speculate and not have definitive proof. You do know this is 2016. Like I said nice fellow, but he certainly does not have all the answers. Neither do you and neither do I . You are welcome to keep talking down to me. Your strong convictions make me smile. If you don't mind myself and the 90 % of the rest of the world will go about are business as the creature is never documented. Don't you work for the government ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 22 hours ago, norseman said: There are no fossils of humans in North America? Run that by me again? First thing that pops into my mind is Kenniwick man. Fossil? No. Skeletal remains, yes, but I don't believe they were fossilized. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 22, 2016 Admin Share Posted August 22, 2016 If you dig up bones of a human who has been dead for 10,000 years what do you call it? Isn't the term fossil Latin for "dug up"? I think we have been over this before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Norse, If it has been hashed out here before, my apologies. But in the strictest of definitions, "fossil" describes bone or other organic matter preserved (either by direct replacement, or just an impression in rock) in petrified form by mineral replacement. "Really old bones" are not a fossil, strictly speaking. Of course, I don't know in what sense Randy was using the term, and that would be up to him to say. I had assumed he meant fossils in the classic sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts