Has Bigfoot Science Stalled? (2)

[hiflier]

28 minutes ago, dmaker said:

That is hilarious, hiflier.

 

See?  My point stands. Oh, may I add that the "He started it first" is a rather lame schoolboy excuse?

Edited June 7, 2017 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Dmaker

I have given you a lot of respect as a strong skeptic. You also know that no one has given me the respect I deserve and I really do not care. I have been posting here since 2002 or around that time . But since that time I have showed evidence of these creatures on BFF 1.0 till now with exception of not having a body to show as proof that they exist.  But if They ever give me a chance to get a picture or to get a single well placed shot believe me you will have that body. I have shown pictures of them but have been criticize by others since they were not clear pictures.

 

The evidence that I have put on this forum is still on this forum and has been criticized but not denied. You can say what you want that what I seen or that what I have experience is all in my head but the evidence that I have placed on this forum says different. Like I have said I am not afraid to be criticized and others in my state have experience the same as my self with maybe the same creatures. So I am not alone in what I have seen or what they have done. They are not bigfoot fairy tales but a living being that I cannot explain. Whether they are some type of Human ape being or they are just an animal with a knowledge  that we have no understanding. But people can look me up as julio12 when they join as a premium member since I am not sure on how they have their server set up. 

 

I am not looking for  any book sales, yet there is enough info for myself here for me to write a book. I have gone public twice and believe that this is all I will do. I am only here so that the truth can be said. I am not afraid to speak my mind and will tell it how it goes with them. I am very open minded with this subject and have experience a lot of strange events that I cannot explain in a normal sense where science can under stand. The capabilities of these creatures is incredible and must be experienced to understand. This is why I do not blame you for being a skeptic or anyone else who has not experienced what I have. It is a normal human response to deny these creatures existence. For myself if there is a heaven then the woods would be my heaven. Through out the years that I have been on this forum I have learned not to get angry over a skeptic point of view over my sighting. I hope that I do come across a dead creature so that I can prove all the skeptic wrong. But this would have to be a gift by them and maybe one day it will happen. So be ready for that day.  

[dmaker]

Shadow, I have always appreciated your calm demeanour. You don't attack me when I point out that your personal truth is just another anecdote to an objective observer. I wish there were more people here like you who do not go on the offensive the moment a counter point is made or the value of an anecdote is questioned. It would be less of a battleground, for sure. 

 

[hiflier]

I agree.

[Guest DWA]

12 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

Oh.  You made a mistake?  That a great technique for getting on a thread outright lies, and then acting like it was an accident.  If you don't know who's who, or what you're posting - maybe you'll do better forming a barbershop quartet.

 

You haven't heard squat - you're too busy running your game.  Once again, you're just dishonest - referring me to a bigfoot fantasist.  Just can't help yourself - there's a psychological term for that - but I think we all know here you're mostly FOS.

 

I never said I had concrete evidence, and over multiple posts, have related the conditions of my meeting engagement.  

 

See - I don't care about providing concrete evidence to you or anyone else.  I have my own personal proof - and that's sufficient.

 

You apparently don't have the presence of mind to differentiate between bluster and simply calling it like it is.  If you're not happy with my analysis - go see a chaplain.

 

They never, never, never, ever talk about their game. That one is just as extreme a case as I have seen.  Here, or anywhere.

And something needs to be said here.  Quoting him to respond to him...is feeding the troll.  Maybe don't.

[dmaker]

13 hours ago, FarArcher said:

Oh.  You made a mistake?  That a great technique for getting on a thread outright lies, and then acting like it was an accident.

If it was not an error, that I realized, then why would I have edited it out of my comment? 

[salubrious]

Moderator Statement:

 

Things have gotten far too personal on this thread. We do have forum rules- and everyone here has agreed to read them and abide by them on order to have posting privileges. We do hold you to that! In the meantime, this thread is locked so we can clean this mess up.

[Registration Desk]

The thread is now re-opened, please treat each other with respect and attack the argument NOT the member!

[Guest]

On 5/4/2017 at 5:09 PM, SWWASAS said:

 None in North America?    How do you know what fossil or bones for that matter have yet to be found?     You surely know how rare fossils are to begin with?        I would think you would throttle back on the absolutes because that has gotten science in trouble throughout it's history.   Science has declared the earth the center of the universe,   the sky a fixed dome above us,   bleeding a cure for many diseases, and the list of how science was wrong goes on and on.   More recently much of what I was taught in college was wrong and has been corrected many times since.    With science, the only thing that has proven more likely than not is that what is accepted now will be discredited in the future.    One of my degree requirements was to take a history of science class.       I think the primary reason for the course at that time was to instill a proper sense of history and responsibility for a scientist to not accept scientific dogma.      I see a lot of officially sanctioned dogma out there.   

 

This was in another thread, it seems to be relevant to the fossil discussion and a pretty good rebuttal to the fossil issue (or lack of)

"The absence of bigfoot from the fossil record is relevant. Comparisons to the chimpanzee fossil record are not, unless I missed a memo and chimps dispersed from their tropical forest homes in Africa at least tens of thousands of years ago, spread across Eurasia, crossed the Bering Land Bridge, and came to occupy the whole of North America...

 

Here's a post from the archives on the fossil record of creatures that do - kind of, because they are now extinct but bigfoots allegedly are not - make a much more logical comparison to bigfoot than that of chimps. Many people make the mistake that because the fossil record is incomplete that it can be dismissed from these discussions. Quite the contrary, I find the lack of bigfoot from the fossil record to be the #2 most important thing that makes me doubt the existence of bigfoot. (Number 1, of course, is the lack of bigfoot from the recent [non-fossilized] record.) Enjoy:

(context: someone had posted that we shouldn't expect bigfoot to appear in the fossil record because it occurs at low population density)

"You are correct: population density (as well as habitat features at the time of death and the time of discovery - and a good bit of luck) plays a big role in the state of the fossil record for various fauna. It is a fundamental principle of ecology (really the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) that herbivores greatly outnumber the carnivores that feed on them. We have many more Triceratops fossils than we do Tyrannosaurus fossils. The same goes for Quaternary mammals. We have many more fossils of ground sloths than we do of ground sloth predators, such as giant short-faced bears. (Just one great resource to learn more about Quaternary mammals in North America.) I just found a paper describing the current database of mammals from Quaternary Mexico to include . . . "more than 15,000 records for 12 orders, 43 families, 146 genera, and 274 species." )

But here's the problem. We even have a lot of fossils of some of these top predators - creatures that must have occurred at low density. Check out the first sentence of the abstract of this paper:

"Fossils of the giant short-faced bear, Arctodus simus (Cope, 1879), have been recovered from over 100 localities in North America, extending from Mexico to Alaska and California to Virginia."

The point of the paper, of course, is that the authors were reporting two additional fossils from another location. So that's 101 locations, some of which produced multiple fossils of these creatures.

Even if you modify your view of this creature from a "top predator," to more of a "roaming scavenger," you have to admit that that's a robust fossil record for a creature about the same size and probably occurring at a similar population density to that assumed for "bigfoot." Short-faced bears, of course, are just one example. Pick a large predatory mammal from the Quaternary of North America - bears, lions, wolves - we have lots of fossils of these things from all manner of habitats. 

So we have a rich fossil record of large mammals - even large mammals that we would expect to occur at low densities - from all over North America. Despite the fact that it's really rare for a fossil to form and even rarer for some knowledgeable human to find it and take steps to get it curated and described in the peer-reviewed literature, we've got a boatload of fossil material. This includes the large mammals that are still with us today: bears, mountain lions, moose, bison - all are well-represented in fossil record.

All except bigfoot, that is.

We might consider something like a bigfoot dispersing overland from Asia to North America via the Bering Land Bridge some time in the mid-to late Pleistocene, just like several other large mammals did. If so, then such creatures must have made use (for generations) of lots of different habitats, just like the other mammals did: forests, steppe grassland, wetlands, muskeg, lakeshores, river corridors, coastlines, etc. Thus it is perfectly rational, reasonable, logical, and scientifically predictable that we should have found at least ONE bigfoot fossil amid all those others. Given that bigfoot is presumed to still be extant, it's also had 10,000–20,000 years of additional opportunity to have the remains of JUST ONE preserved and found, relative to its now extinct Pleistocene counterparts. 

So let no one convince you that the lack of bigfoot fossil material is no problem for acceptance of claims that such a creature exists today - it's a big problem, and the problem grows with every paper published on new Quaternary fossil discoveries that do not include such a species. The problem isn't that there should be lots of bigfoot fossils (though there should be) given its reputed range and presumed history of occurrence in the New World (or the Old, for that matter), the problem is that there should be at least one. The lack of a bigfoot fossil record certainly does not prove that they don't exist (I wonder how many times I'll have to write that phrase before people will remember it), but it is highly suggestive."

~Saskeptic (from a while ago)

 

 

[hiflier]

"Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?" 

 

Yes it has. But bring the right kind of evidence to the right kind of people and one would have a good chance of UN-stalling it.

 

I think we all pretty much know this.

[norseman]

On 7/4/2017 at 9:06 AM, Happy Camper said:

 

This was in another thread, it seems to be relevant to the fossil discussion and a pretty good rebuttal to the fossil issue (or lack of)

"The absence of bigfoot from the fossil record is relevant. Comparisons to the chimpanzee fossil record are not, unless I missed a memo and chimps dispersed from their tropical forest homes in Africa at least tens of thousands of years ago, spread across Eurasia, crossed the Bering Land Bridge, and came to occupy the whole of North America...

 

Here's a post from the archives on the fossil record of creatures that do - kind of, because they are now extinct but bigfoots allegedly are not - make a much more logical comparison to bigfoot than that of chimps. Many people make the mistake that because the fossil record is incomplete that it can be dismissed from these discussions. Quite the contrary, I find the lack of bigfoot from the fossil record to be the #2 most important thing that makes me doubt the existence of bigfoot. (Number 1, of course, is the lack of bigfoot from the recent [non-fossilized] record.) Enjoy:

(context: someone had posted that we shouldn't expect bigfoot to appear in the fossil record because it occurs at low population density)

"You are correct: population density (as well as habitat features at the time of death and the time of discovery - and a good bit of luck) plays a big role in the state of the fossil record for various fauna. It is a fundamental principle of ecology (really the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) that herbivores greatly outnumber the carnivores that feed on them. We have many more Triceratops fossils than we do Tyrannosaurus fossils. The same goes for Quaternary mammals. We have many more fossils of ground sloths than we do of ground sloth predators, such as giant short-faced bears. (Just one great resource to learn more about Quaternary mammals in North America.) I just found a paper describing the current database of mammals from Quaternary Mexico to include . . . "more than 15,000 records for 12 orders, 43 families, 146 genera, and 274 species." )

But here's the problem. We even have a lot of fossils of some of these top predators - creatures that must have occurred at low density. Check out the first sentence of the abstract of this paper:

"Fossils of the giant short-faced bear, Arctodus simus (Cope, 1879), have been recovered from over 100 localities in North America, extending from Mexico to Alaska and California to Virginia."

The point of the paper, of course, is that the authors were reporting two additional fossils from another location. So that's 101 locations, some of which produced multiple fossils of these creatures.

Even if you modify your view of this creature from a "top predator," to more of a "roaming scavenger," you have to admit that that's a robust fossil record for a creature about the same size and probably occurring at a similar population density to that assumed for "bigfoot." Short-faced bears, of course, are just one example. Pick a large predatory mammal from the Quaternary of North America - bears, lions, wolves - we have lots of fossils of these things from all manner of habitats. 

So we have a rich fossil record of large mammals - even large mammals that we would expect to occur at low densities - from all over North America. Despite the fact that it's really rare for a fossil to form and even rarer for some knowledgeable human to find it and take steps to get it curated and described in the peer-reviewed literature, we've got a boatload of fossil material. This includes the large mammals that are still with us today: bears, mountain lions, moose, bison - all are well-represented in fossil record.

All except bigfoot, that is.

We might consider something like a bigfoot dispersing overland from Asia to North America via the Bering Land Bridge some time in the mid-to late Pleistocene, just like several other large mammals did. If so, then such creatures must have made use (for generations) of lots of different habitats, just like the other mammals did: forests, steppe grassland, wetlands, muskeg, lakeshores, river corridors, coastlines, etc. Thus it is perfectly rational, reasonable, logical, and scientifically predictable that we should have found at least ONE bigfoot fossil amid all those others. Given that bigfoot is presumed to still be extant, it's also had 10,000–20,000 years of additional opportunity to have the remains of JUST ONE preserved and found, relative to its now extinct Pleistocene counterparts. 

So let no one convince you that the lack of bigfoot fossil material is no problem for acceptance of claims that such a creature exists today - it's a big problem, and the problem grows with every paper published on new Quaternary fossil discoveries that do not include such a species. The problem isn't that there should be lots of bigfoot fossils (though there should be) given its reputed range and presumed history of occurrence in the New World (or the Old, for that matter), the problem is that there should be at least one. The lack of a bigfoot fossil record certainly does not prove that they don't exist (I wonder how many times I'll have to write that phrase before people will remember it), but it is highly suggestive."

~Saskeptic (from a while ago)

 

 

 

How do we know that Bigfoot isn't represented in the fossil record right now? 

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/130000-year-old-mastodon-threatens-upend-human-history/

 

It would seem something was here hunting Mastadons prior to the arrival of modern humans.

 

I think it's extremely naive of us to think that our older bipedal cousins could not accomplish what we could. When there is plenty of evidence they were in the extreme eastern reaches of Asia....including Up north in Siberia.

 

Leakey believed in the legitimacy of sites like Calico in California. It would seem history may vindicate that belief.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

 

How do we know that Bigfoot isn't represented in the fossil record right now? 

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/130000-year-old-mastodon-threatens-upend-human-history/

 

It would seem something was here hunting Mastadons prior to the arrival of modern humans.

 

I think it's extremely naive of us to think that our older bipedal cousins could not accomplish what we could. When there is plenty of evidence they were in the extreme eastern reaches of Asia....including Up north in Siberia.

 

Leakey believed in the legitimacy of sites like Calico in California. It would seem history may vindicate that belief.

 

 

 

 

 

Because there's no such thing as Bigfoot, it's a social construct. 

 

[norseman]

No. There was such a thing as Bigfoot. And if it's a social construct today? It's because humans are wired to be looking out for large hairy cousins hiding in the bushes.

[Guest]

On July 10, 2017 at 5:42 AM, norseman said:

No. There was such a thing as Bigfoot. And if it's a social construct today? It's because humans are wired to be looking out for large hairy cousins hiding in the bushes.

 

Maybe I'm missing something here....are you suggesting there is evidence that Bigfoot did exsist? 

[norseman]

If by bigfoot you mean a large hairy bipedal primate cousin? I would have to say yes.