How Has This Forum Affected Your Belief In Bf?

[Guest]

"My position" is that every 'large' if not every animal known to exist in North America today is represented in the fossil record, or at least through a closely related subspecies. We have fossils of tiny rodents and tiny fish due to environs that are conducive to fossilization process. The idea that a huge animal would be absent from the same deposits that give us tiny field mice all the way up to huge mammoths and everything in between -including cave deposits, river bed deposits, tar pits, etc.- is rather absurd if one considers it objectively.

And yet there are known animals all over the world which are absent from the fossil record. I guess nobody told them how "absurd" it is!

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

Once again, I don't think anyone is claiming that this proves his existence, only that it doesn't disprove it.

Strawman argument. I didn't say that anyone claims that lack of fossils "proves his existence". I said that Bigfoot bleevers try to dismiss the glaring lack of fossils as being an insignificant absence...your post(s) in example.

You live in Florida. Are you unaware of Florida's famous fossil deposits from the Pleistocene as found in the rivers?

I cannot, but that's because I do not know how to find that information.

Not being snarky but that begs the question: so how do you feel qualified to make any pronouncements about the significance/insignificance of the absence of Bigfoot fossils in North (and Central and South) America -? It sounds as if you're just regurgitating a popular (yet illogical) claim of Bigfoot bleevers: "The absence of Bigfoot fossils in the (American) fossil record is inconsequential because blah blah blah..." without truly having any personal knowledge about the subject sufficient to discuss it authoritatively. Honestly, that's pretty much where 99% of Bigfoot bleevers get their 'facts' on the subject: by repeating whatever 'everyone else' in the bleever community says. He repeated it, you repeated it, someone else repeats it and after awhile, you're all repeating a claim that you think is credible simply because 'everyone else says it, too'.

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

And yet there are known animals all over the world which are absent from the fossil record. I guess nobody told them how "absurd" it is!

Such as -? Besides, we're not talking about "all over the world"...we're talking about animals here in America, especially large, 'hard to miss' species.

I mean, can you scour the internet for a newly discovered subspecies of flat worm that was "previously unknown to science!" Probably, although 90% of those are actually not 'discoveries' so much as 'identifications' of subspecies based on taxonomic standards that are often high contested even among the concerned taxonomists). Can you show me a species of large animal that lives in fairly well populated areas where people are hunting, driving cars and trucks on modern highways, carrying cell phones and other cameras, setting up trail cams, etc. etc. and show me one that -gasp!- nobody knew existed and of which there is nothing in the fossil record like it?

No, you cannot. That's my "position".

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest]

Strawman argument. I didn't say that anyone claims that lack of fossils "proves his existence". I said that Bigfoot bleevers try to dismiss the glaring lack of fossils as being an insignificant absence...your post(s) in example.

You live in Florida. Are you unaware of Florida's famous fossil deposits from the Pleistocene as found in the rivers?

Not being snarky but that begs the question: so how do you feel qualified to make any pronouncements about the significance/insignificance of the absence of Bigfoot fossils in North (and Central and South) America -? It sounds as if you're just regurgitating a popular (yet illogical) claim of Bigfoot bleevers: "The absence of Bigfoot fossils in the (American) fossil record is inconsequential because blah blah blah..." without truly knowing enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently. Honestly, that's pretty much where 99% of Bigfoot bleevers get their 'facts' on the subject: by repeating whatever 'everyone else' in the bleever community says. He repeated it, you repeated it, someone else repeats it and after awhile, you're all repeating a claim that you think is credible simply because 'everyone else says it, too'.

I'm not dismissing it at all, talk about a strawman. I'm only offering a possible explanation. It is a fact that animals exist which are not in the fossil record, so therefor it is a fact that the absence of fossils does not alone disprove the existence of an animal.

As for my lack of "expertise" on the subject, I'll comment a long as I am comfortable with the subject matter, and if it goes over my had I will gladly admit as much. So far, nothing either of us has said has been particularly profound.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

It is a fact that animals exist which are not in the fossil record, so therefor it is a fact that the absence of fossils does not alone disprove the existence of an animal.

That's the second time you've made that claim but you've yet to give any examples of any other extant animal species here in North America that are unknown from fossil (or 'near fossil') records.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

As for my lack of "expertise" on the subject, I'll comment a long as I am comfortable with the subject matter, and if it goes over my had I will gladly admit as much. So far, nothing either of us has said has been particularly profound.

Another strawman; I didn't comment on whether or not you could, would or should continue to speak on the subject. I only pointed out that you admitted you have little if any knowledge on the subject of the fossil record of America and so your proclamations are obviously due only to you regurgitating the typical claims of Bigfoot believers.

I mean, you DO believe in the existence of Bigfoot, don't you?

Edited to remove negative term. Chris B.

[Guest rockinkt]

Ohhh, if the creature bore any semblance to Patty, there's a couple posters I'd enjoy serving a warm dish of crow. Along with some just desserts. A fleeting smile would cross my face.

I would fly to your town/city...shake your hand... order you your favorite adult beverage and toast your victory.

I would then search for another topic we could disagree on and hopefully have a delightful time passionately debating the subject.

[wolftrax]

I've become bitter over time. It's been at least 7 years now, maybe 8, that I've been involved in this whole thing. I came here all bright eyed and bushy tailed long ago. My family is Native American, I saw and experienced things that even people here would find extremely hard to believe. I had a good sense that even then there were two kinds of sasquatch, the real one, the elusive spirit of the woods, powerful medicine and at the edge of our understanding, yet a link between us and the natural world. Then the one that people made, out of desperation, or fun, or justification, the majority of what is called evidence. I kept that close to my chest though. But I liked the people involved, even though I felt most of the stuff was hoaxed, but I tried to get along with those who put so much belief in even the fake stuff. But there was something else going on that made itself clear. Some people, that put a big financial investment into it, that promoted it, demonized those who had doubts and not only expressed those doubts, but especially those who provided evidence that what was being promoted wasn't what it was claimed to be. They developed a division line, "Believers" vs. "Skeptics". They spread paranoia and propaganda, that those who cast doubt on evidence were calling others "Liars", that the whole reason sasquatch, and hence people that believed in sasquatch, wasn't taken seriously was because of the "Skeptics" and their "insidious agenda", when in reality it was what it always was, people talking about and even researching this subject and the evidence. People looking, and finding, explanations other than the mystery. I saw those I thought I respected creating lies about those they persecuted, and I saw them use their influence to create divisions to outright ostracize normal people who only got involved out of a mutual interest, so that they can make a buck.

It's no longer about research, it's no longer about the search for truth, if it ever was. It is about entertainment, the TV show, and using fiction to present something as real. It's about doing anything to prove the fake sasquatch is real, with it's wooden feet and dynel fur and mixed up anatomy, while the real sasquatch, if there is one, hides safely tucked away at the edges of human perception, unseen, unheard, and unknown.

Perhaps that is for the best.

Edited July 11, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest bumfish]

Hey Shelley! I have to agree with you, its the hardcore believers in Sasquatch that tend to throw me off more than the skeptics. I personally believe the focus of Sasquatch research has been twisted and the vision been put out of sight! Nowadays believers are pretty much convinced themselves and presume most others believe that the evidence collated is conclusive; indicating the existence of Sasquatch. This means they research cases anywhere and attribute strange happenings to Sasquatch in any where they visit. Take Finding Bigfoot, the BFRO researchers show the exact same approach. The focus of Bigfoot field research should be "WHAT is causing these strange sightings/occurrences" Not explaining what they PRESUME it is. I find believing in Sasquatch requires an open mind. A lot, (not all) of Bigfoot believers are narrow minded. Bigfoot explains everything. People need to stay on the same road as people such as Dahinden. To analyse the facts and find conclusive evidence and rule out all else. I believe that the existence of Sasquatch is highly likely in remote wilderness areas of North America but it has not yet been proven. Examining the possibilities of what evidence is there could be is more beneficial whilst going out to look for CONCRETE proof.

[Incorrigible1]

...Bigfoot bleevers......Bigfoot bleevers......

Whatever valid contentions you make are lost in the continued derogatory use of the "bleever" term. I'm rightfully offended.

[Guest]

That's the second time you've made that claim but you've yet to give any examples of any other extant animal species here in North America that are unknown from fossil (or 'near fossil') records.

You put the qualifier on it, I didn't. I said that there are species not represented in the fossil record, and you said "Well how about here in North America?" If I did give you a large animal species in North America that is not in the fossil record, then you might say "Yeah, but what example can you give me of a mammal? And if I did that, then you would say "Yeah but what about a primate?" which would be bullet-proof because there are no other known primates in North America.

The fact is that there are known animals absent from the fossil record, so it is possible that this could be the case here. It is also quite possible that there is no such thing as Bigfoot, which would be a GREAT reason for his absence from the fossil record.

Once AGAIN- I do not think this proves his existence by any means, I am only saying it doesn't DISPROVE it. You say that's a strawman, but it seems to be the very crux of this conversation that we keep coming back to. If we are going to continue going around in the same circle, then this would be a great place to stop IMHO.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

You put the qualifier on it, I didn't. I said that there are species not represented in the fossil record, and you said "Well how about here in North America?" If I did give you a large animal species in North America that is not in the fossil record, then you might say "Yeah, but what example can you give me of a mammal? And if I did that, then you would say "Yeah but what about a primate?" which would be bullet-proof because there are no other known primates in North America.

The fact is that there are known animals absent from the fossil record, so it is possible that this could be the case here. It is also quite possible that there is no such thing as Bigfoot, which would be a GREAT reason for his absence from the fossil record.

The point is that America is fossil rich whereas many other places either do not have good fossil records or the terrain is not conducive to finding those fossils. That's simply not the case here in America. America's fossil record is represented by pretty much any and every type of fossil possible including carcasses of Ice Age animals from permafrost conditions to tar pits to petrified remains, bog finds, river finds, etc. For that reason, we have no 'other' examples of any extant species of animals (of any significant size- more on that later) that are not represented in the fossil record.

IF fossils of other extant animals were rare or 'missing' in America's fossil record, then the absence of any Bigfoot fossils wouldn't be so conspicuous, so damning. But that is not the situation and thus it's illogical to believe that Bigfoot exists here and has existed here for thousands of years (unless someone is going with the theory that Bigfoot are space aliens/alien introduced) but yet has left no fossil record behind.

Is that the nail in the coffin? Perhaps not: but the flippant dismissal of such a glaring absence by Bigfoot BELIEVERS is laughable at best.

At the end of the day, all of the evidence for Bigfoot is anecdotal...and yes, that includes footprint casts with dermal ridges and bone deformities.

Once AGAIN- I do not think this proves his existence by any means, I am only saying it doesn't DISPROVE it. You say that's a strawman...

Seriously, do you know what a strawman argument is- ? A strawman argument is when you claim the other person said "that" and then you argue against "that" but the fact is, "that" is not what the other person said. So you're beating up a strawman (something the other person did not say) rather than attacking the 'real man' (what the other person actually did say). You keep lecturing me that the absence of Bigfoot fossils does not prove his existence. I never said that you or any other Bigfoot BELIEVERS claim that the absence of Bigfoot fossils prove his existence. Rather, I said (and say) that you Bigfoot BELIEVERS dismiss the absence of Bigfoot fossils as inconsequential when in reality the absence is glaring and very condemning.

"Yeah but what about a primate?" which would be bullet-proof because there are no other known primates in North America."

Well, I presume by that you mean no other primates other than humans, right? But even so, that's not exactly correct. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080303-american-primate.html I point this out to show that (and I don't how else to say this other than bluntly and candidly) most of you Bigfoot BELIEVERS are not students of the very subjects about which you sling around proclamations with an authoritative air.

But let's take your personal belief system: which is what, exactly? If you won't share it with me, I'll discuss one of the (currently) most popular claims, what I refer to as "The BIG Theory":

Bigfoot

Is

Gigantopithecus.

The laugh factor on that one is that the same people who triumphantly declare "See? See? There WAS a creature that looked JUST LIKE BIGFOOT! Here are the fossils that PROVE that!"

are the same ones who then flippantly dismiss the question

"Well then: where are the Giganto fossils here in America? For that matter, where are the Giganto fossils ANYWHERE in Beringia, through which Giganto would have had to move to have gotten here to America?"

with a smug response of

"Not all animals are fossilized. The chances of an animal being fossilized are very slim. We shouldn't expect to find Giganto/Bigfoot fossils because the little animals of the forest would eat up the remains...blah blah blah."

In short, people who adhere to The BIG Theory want it both ways; they use the fossil record (in China/Vietnam) to PROVE that such a creature as Bigfoot ONCE LIVED SOMEWHERE...but then they dismiss the lack of any corresponding fossil record here in America as inconsequential. For that matter, they also dismiss:

- the lack of any fossils of Giganto/Bigfoot or any other (non-human) apes anywhere in thousands of miles of Beringia through which any Asian ape migrating to America would have had to move; as well as

- the fact that the most recent occurrence of Giganto in the fossil record (OF ASIA) was around 100K years ago.

So there's:

- a very big gap in the age of Giganto fossils to modern times,

- a very big gap in the geographical occurrence of Giganto fossils to America,

- a very big absence of Giganto fossils in America.

You know, that really IS a "BIG" theory.

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Incorrigible1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145721/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/first-ever-chimpanzee-fossils-found/

updated 8/31/2005 2:59:38 PM

"The first-ever chimpanzee fossils were recently discovered in an area previously thought to be unsuitable for chimps. Fossils from human ancestors were also found nearby."

Did chimpanzees exist in Africa before discovery of their fossil remains?

[Guest]

If an extant species was missing from the fossil record would we know it?

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

Whatever valid contentions you make are lost in the continued derogatory use of the "bleever" term. I'm rightfully offended.

"Bleever" is simply an alternative and 'easier' spelling of "believer" which is easily misspelled when typing quickly. Add to that, most people sort of slur the word "believer" when speaking into something that sounds more like "bleever". So "bleever" is simply a tool of convenience because at the end of the day whether spelled "believer" or "bleever" the connotation is the same; that is, I think no less of the opinion of someone I refer to as a "Bigfoot bleever" than the opinion of someone I refer to as a "Bigfoot believer".