SWWASAS Posted June 2, 2018 BFF Patron Share Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) Looking at my previous post and the glyph picture I had a thought. With human archaeology, when bones of human ancestors were found, the species studied and established, careful study of the same area/ strata is conducted for evidence of tool use, fire, broken animal bones,, and other cultural evidence. To my knowledge, none of that has been done with BF. Since the species existence is not established, nobody that has the expertise to recognize cultural artifacts has done a careful look. For all we know there are caves and lava tubes with floors littered with cultural artifacts associated with BF. It is not unreasonable to think that a creature who would leave that glyph on a stump for me, would decorate cave or lava tube walls with artwork or communicative glyphs either, just like primative humans did during the ice age. Not only may the assumption that BF does not create cultural artifacts be wrong, but that theory may be preventing researchers from looking for them. Much of what we know about human ancestors is from examining their cultural artifacts. Is this a new direction to take BF research? Edited June 2, 2018 by SWWASAS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, hiflier said: Talk about not reading a room I can read a room just fine. i can also separate reality from fantasy. Edited June 3, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 3, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, norseman said: If the foot is archaic it stands to reason that the rest of it is as well. I wouldn't bet on that. Archeologists tell us that many human ancestors had a mix of seemingly archaic and seemingly modern traits. Extrapolating to say one trail will be archaic based on another simply has no basis. It may be intuitively attractive but it is scientifically unsound. MIB Edited June 3, 2018 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 25 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: I can read a room just fine. i can also separate reality from fantasy Squatchy, with all due respect, you're just lashing out at everything. There are members here that are trying to run things to ground with good thinking dialogue. Whether for good or for naught remains to be seen. That's seems to be what this 'room' is doing and many enjoy the thought process. I cannot see that you are having any effect whatsoever on anyone with the methods you employ. if members here are to be believed then there are a few mysterious things going on and they are working through them. Trying to cut them off at the knees every chance you get is fairly unproductive IMHO as well as ineffective. Your choice: keep hammering away at everyone or join the conversation and add a few ideas to lend a hand. You could do that once in a while you know 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 53 minutes ago, MIB said: I wouldn't bet on that. Archeologists tell us that many human ancestors had a mix of seemingly archaic and seemingly modern traits. Extrapolating to say one trail will be archaic based on another simply has no basis. It may be intuitively attractive but it is scientifically unsound. MIB I would..... https://www.livescience.com/55388-homo-erectus-walked-like-humans.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 21 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: Yes it’s just supposition. There is no evidence to suggest that Sasquatch is descended from Gigantopithecus, save for wishful thinking. Meldrum likes to pretend that Gigantopithecus crossed the Bering Strait ice bridge. Meldrum knows he cannot back up this claim with any evidence or proof, so he resorts to dismissive rhetoric when asked to back up his claim. All Meldrum has is an interest in a 50 year old hoaxed film, a collection of plaster casts (some of which have been proven to be fake), and a cast of an elk lay. Meldrum knows this, so he relies on an unwavering fan base and self-publication. In many ways Meldrum has already committed professional suicide and he knows this too. He may be employed as a professor, but Don Jeffrey Meldrum has forever relegated himself into the realm of cryptozoology — just like Krantz and Bindernagel before him. No blowback necessary. So sad too bad this is and always will be the status of Sasquatch. There is zero evidence of Gigantopithecus in North America. Just wishful thinking... Gonna put a (bf) body on a slab? Never gonna happen. More wishful thinking... In the meantime I can point you to many proven Bigfoot hoaxes. This isn’t wishful thinking it’s fact. But it’s fun to play make-believe on the internet, isn’t it? You should really consider adding " It is my opinion " to everything you post as you continue to put out your assumptions as if they are facts. Words don't have value if they can't stand the test of truancy. I don't know your motivations in this topic and I won't guess what they are but I will drop a note. It is foolish for a person to respond with the idea of demonstrating a perceived truth if they have nothing to back up the claim, the people who are weighing the topic will not give it consideration. People pay attention to what is being said when it stands on it's own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 3, 2018 BFF Patron Share Posted June 3, 2018 Nathon most of what he says is trolling, intended to evoke an emotional response from someone that knows something. He never intends to have a conversation, all of his fun is in poking a sharp stick at everyone else. I find it interesting that the scoffers, always bring up hoaxing as evidence to support their non-existence rants. All the time ignoring the fact the a good portion of the hoaxers are skeptics that plant evidence then howl with glee when they fool some proponent like Meldrum. One could argue that skeptic hoaxers are the problem rather than a reason for not believing in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Well..... something crossed the land bridge LONG before 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-americas-first-humans-20170426-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 3, 2018 BFF Patron Share Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) LA times: "McNabb wondered why there were no signs of sharp, flaked tools at the site. The study authors posit that this mastodon may have been so far gone that there was no meat to butcher — but it still struck McNabb as odd, unless the skeleton had already been completely disarticulated and the animal's thick skin removed. In which case, how good could the marrow in the bones still be? " Humm. We know of anything around that does not use sharp stone tools hunt or to process meat? Like you said something crossed over that early. Well maybe some scientists will start looking in strata that old and find out who was here then? No reason to before. Edited June 3, 2018 by SWWASAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, NathanFooter said: You should really consider adding " It is my opinion " to everything you post as you continue to put out your assumptions as if they are facts. Should the consideration of adding 'it is my opinion' not apply to everyone else posting in this thread? It's an internet message board. Unless a post is cited with a scientifically supported (real, published reviewed science -- not bigfoot science) anything that is posted here is 'of my opinion' 'of your opinion' 'of his opinion' 'of her opinion'... 3 hours ago, NathanFooter said: Words don't have value if they can't stand the test of truancy. I don't know your motivations in this topic and I won't guess what they are but I will drop a note. I don't think you know what truancy means. As for my motivations -- I've made it pretty clear where I stand. In this thread and others. 3 hours ago, NathanFooter said: It is foolish for a person to respond with the idea of demonstrating a perceived truth if they have nothing to back up the claim, the people who are weighing the topic will not give it consideration. You mean like your alleged sighting? The [proponents] people weighing the topic can't even agree among themselves if bf is a flesh and blood creature or a paranormal entity. So please tell me more about demonstrating a perceived truth with nothing to back up the claim. That door swings both ways. 3 hours ago, NathanFooter said: People pay attention to what is being said when it stands on it's own. Which people? What has been said that stands on its own? The only thing that stands on its own wrt bigfoot is the many hoaxes that have been PROVEN. I suggest you read my signature which I borrowed from truant member Darrel, and was written 6 years ago but still holds up: "This time next year you are all still going to be making the same excuses as to why you can't find bigfoot. 5 years from now same story." Darrell Aug 22 2012 Edited June 3, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 3, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 3, 2018 1 hour ago, norseman said: Well..... something crossed the land bridge LONG before 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-americas-first-humans-20170426-story.html At this point, I'm not convinced and neither is the scientific community. You read the article you linked, right? And so you saw words like highly speculative and no substantiating evidence? The timeline is interesting .. but I'm not sure what it has to do with archaic and modern. Fully modern humans appeared on the landscape just under 200,000 years ago, well before the 130,000 cited. Could you connect the dots please? What ARE you trying to say? Supposing "something" is responsible for those marks on the bones ... it did not cross THE land bridge. The most recent Bering land bridge existed from 70,000 to about 11,000 years ago. The 130,000 year figure matches a good estimate of the end of the PRIOR land bridge .. there have been 4 during quaternary time .. the last 2.6-ish million years. Speaking of that, bigfoot ancestors could have arrived during any of those .. but whichever it was, we're still left with the issue of a missing fossil record for them .. same as we lack peer reviewed evidence for our ancestors being here before .. well, the oldest academically accepted date is in the ballpark of 25,000 years ago. If that's the best case you can put forward, you failed. It really isn't relevant to consideration of modern vs archaic physical features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, MIB said: At this point, I'm not convinced and neither is the scientific community. You read the article you linked, right? And so you saw words like highly speculative and no substantiating evidence? The timeline is interesting .. but I'm not sure what it has to do with archaic and modern. Fully modern humans appeared on the landscape just under 200,000 years ago, well before the 130,000 cited. Could you connect the dots please? What ARE you trying to say? Supposing "something" is responsible for those marks on the bones ... it did not cross THE land bridge. The most recent Bering land bridge existed from 70,000 to about 11,000 years ago. The 130,000 year figure matches a good estimate of the end of the PRIOR land bridge .. there have been 4 during quaternary time .. the last 2.6-ish million years. Speaking of that, bigfoot ancestors could have arrived during any of those .. but whichever it was, we're still left with the issue of a missing fossil record for them .. same as we lack peer reviewed evidence for our ancestors being here before .. well, the oldest academically accepted date is in the ballpark of 25,000 years ago. If that's the best case you can put forward, you failed. It really isn't relevant to consideration of modern vs archaic physical features. My post was in reference to Squatchy making fun of the idea that Sasquatch could have crossed the land bridge. As far as the Mastadon find? The guys that go to Africa and use paleo hammer and anvil techniques to break open Elephant bones? Say the find is legit. And thats good enough for me. We can speculate WHO it was in California 130,000 years ago. But Im convinced something was there. And that puts the official story from science about 110,000 years behind the 8 ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 As far as fossil evidence goes? We MIGHT HAVE had a chance with this. Might still, but it would take some effort: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 And what is "this"? Asking for those of us who are less informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 I believe that is Mike Ruggs tooth.... http://bigfootdiscoveryproject.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts