How Has This Forum Affected Your Belief In Bf?

[Guest LAL]

Implying....what, exactly -?

It takes fossils to be there and someone to find them.

Under 200' of St. Helens mud might have been a good place to look for large mammal remains but I don't know of any excavations in the area.

It hasn't been 50 years since the PGF. I'm picky.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

The PNW is prime habitat...

Why? And with that statement are you excluding other habitats?

It's a likely place to find fossils buried by mud flows but not burned to a crisp. I can't find any fossil beds like that, preferably Pleistocene and in the Cascade Range, in this list. Can you?

So now you're limiting "the PNW...prime habitat" to "the Cascade Range" -?

Not to mention that with your restriction of the PNW as prime habitat, you're effectively disputing all of the claims for Bigfoot in other parts of the country.

(La Brea would have been great but it was kind of the wrong biome, wasn't it?)

Why?

One thing you need to explain is from where and how you think Bigfoot got here...or are you claiming it evolved here?

Giganto survived for 6 million years. Why is a couple of hundred thousand years a problem? They had plenty of time to spread.

Are you claiming that BIG (Bigfoot Is Gigantopithecus)? If so, what is your explanation for how BIG got here from Asia since you've also claimed that BIG is restricted to only certain kinds of biomes?

I don't think the owners of the jaws were living in the caves. The jaws were dragged in or possibly washed in.

Was that just a side note, then? Because I can find no relevance to the discussion.

Not yet. See list above. There were some huge "monkeys' in South America though.

Such as -? And what do/would South American monkeys have to do with BIG? You're hopping around all over the place.

Such as grazing animals and bears that utilized caves?

Yes: the American fossil record includes grazing animals and bears that utilized caves.

Berengia extended several hundred miles into the continents on either side.

Yes, that is correct: Beringia was much more than just the Bering land bridge...as I said.

Mostly (or muchly?) underwater now counting all of it.

And your point there is -?

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

It takes fossils to be there and someone to find them.

Under 200' of St. Helens mud might have been a good place to look for large mammal remains but I don't know of any excavations in the area.

How convenient. Bigfoot fossils "might" be under the Mount Saint Helens lava flows but now we'll just likely never get to see them.

Pffft.

Meanwhile, there are many, many other fossil beds in the PNW as well as the rest of America...and all other extant species of animals are represented...but no Bigfoot fossils. Carry on.

[Incorrigible1]

It's been six years since the discovery of the first known chimpanzee fossil remains.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

It's been six years since the discovery of the first known chimpanzee fossil remains.

And 0 years since the non-discovery of any fossils of Bigfoot fossils or anything remotely resembling Bigfoot. Or even 'modern' Bigfoot bones. Or Bigfoot hide. Or Bigfoot DNA.

Etc.

Meanwhile, we can go to the zoo and see chimpanzees. Or watch them on television on Animal Planet or Discovery Channel. I think I even saw a National Geographic special one time about chimpanzees complete with video of them.

[Guest LAL]

How convenient. Bigfoot fossils "might" be under the Mount Saint Helens lava flows but now we'll just likely never get to see them.

Lava flows? Think about that.

Meanwhile, there are many, many other fossil beds in the PNW as well as the rest of America...and all other extant species of animals are represented...but no Bigfoot fossils. Carry on.

Check out the ages of the fossils found in most of them. I don't think Giganto or any other huge primate would be found in grassland unless it was just passing through.

I suppos I should have climbed Table Mountain in the Columbia Gorge when I lived there. Gosh, why not find bigfoot fossils in Mississippian formation?

We're seriously off-topic here. I know you know where the bones thread is if you must continue.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

Lava flows? Think about that.

I'm not going to play your game of trying to guess what you mean with such ambiguous comments. Did you have a point?

Check out the ages of the fossils found in most of them. I don't think Giganto or any other huge primate would be found in grassland unless it was just passing through.

And of course, you decline to respond to the other questions I asked about your BIG theory/model of migration as well as your definitions of "prime habitat".

[Guest LAL]

I'm not going to play your game of trying to guess what you mean with such ambiguous comments. Did you have a point?

There were no lava flows in the 1980 St. Helens eruption. Lava in earlier eruptions might leave a body cast but no physical remains.

And of course, you decline to respond to the other questions I asked about your BIG theory/model of migration as well as your definitions of "prime habitat".

This is off topic. I'll respond on the proper thread if you repost there.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

There were no lava flows in the 1980 St. Helens eruption. Lava in earlier eruptions might leave a body cast but no physical remains.

You only just specified the 1980 eruption. This is what I mean by ambiguous statements.

[Guest LAL]

You only just specified the 1980 eruption. This is what I mean by ambiguous statements.

I specifically said mud flow. I don't know how you got lava out of that. To quote me exactly I said, "It takes fossils to be there and someone to find them.

Under 200' of St. Helens mud might have been a good place to look for large mammal remains but I don't know of any excavations in the area."

What's ambiguous about that? Spirit Lake Lodge - and Harry Truman - were buried under 200' of mud.

Ray Crowe actually did do some looking but there wasn't much of anything left. The blast blew things to bits, but there were some whole animals washed down the Toutle in one of the major mud flows.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

I specifically said mud flow.

And I pointed out how you also just specified the 1980 eruption. Are you saying that I should have known when you talked about mud flows you were only talking about the 1980 eruption? Are you saying that mud flows only occurred in the 1980 eruption?

I'm trying to hang with you but it's like nailing jello to the wall.

[Guest nona]

shelley7950,

Before I came to this site I guess you could have called me a fence sitter in regards to my belief about this creature. The only thing I knew about bigfoot however, was that it is large and harry. After being here for a short while, I quickly learned there was so much more to the bigfoot phenomenon than I realized. Surprisingly the more and more I read about bigfoot however, did not make me more of a believer. Like you the “knowledge†had an opposite effect. I came to the conclusion that I had previously no idea as to what “bigfoot†is and that the possibility of this “bigfoot†existing is pretty much nil.

It’s ironic that what pushed me to this conclusion were essentially the arguments made in favor of the creature’s existence. Some of the arguments made here would run in circles. As for the discussions in which they didn’t the claims would tend to get more and more extraordinary. “I didn’t have a camera at the time.†Come 2011 when just about everyone has a pocket sized camera or one on their phone and there are trail-cams just about everywhere. “The creature can see in infrared.†Some trail-cams don’t use infrared. “The creature can sense electro-static given off by the batteries.†Seriously?

Conflicting arguments made by bigfoot proponents didn’t help one bit either. One person would state that the creature is shy and afraid of humans and then use this statement to explain why we don’t have many encounters. Then another person will state this creature is the top predator of the forest, afraid of nothing and if it felt so would rip you in half. One person will state the proof of bigfoot’s existence is in prints and hairs. Then another would state that it is nearly impossible to track this creature because it’s like a ninja of the forest, despite being at least 7 feet tall and weighing anywhere from 280 to 2000lbs. It is simply puzzling.

After reading these arguments I have trouble maintaining an open mind that a "bigfoot" could exist. Then sometimes I wonder if it could just be the intermingling of different theories with opposing ideas that is causing the conflict of logic and resulting in a more skeptical view. Maybe if post can be separated in to sub-categories according to theory (ape theory, prehistoric man theory, psychic theory, etc.) we could have more of an organized discussion. Then depending on which theory you find more compelling maybe a more convincing argument in favor of the creature's existence can be found. Then again it may change nothing at all, but who knows.

[Guest LAL]

And I pointed out how you also just specified the 1980 eruption. Are you saying that I should have known when you talked about mud flows you were only talking about the 1980 eruption? Are you saying that mud flows only occurred in the 1980 eruption?

I'm trying to hang with you but it's like nailing jello to the wall.

Apparently you didn't know there were no lava flows in that eruption. That's okay, but don't try to blame it on me. Volcanic areas aren't great for fossilization for reasons other than acid soils.

That's enough of hijacking the thread. I won't reply to you here again.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

Apparently you didn't know there were no lava flows in that eruption. That's okay, but don't try to blame it on me. Volcanic areas aren't great for fossilization for reasons other than acid soils.

That's enough of hijacking the thread. I won't reply to you here again.

I didn't limit or even associate my initial comment about "lava flows" with the 1980 eruption. Regardless, this is was all a tempest in a teapot. The original subtopic was that there are many rich fossil beds in the PNW (if that's the geographical restriction of your belief in Bigfoot) and claiming, implying, insinuating, whatever that there probably are Bigfoot fossils but every single one of them was covered over by (one of) the Mount St. Helens eruptions is just too tidy of an excuse for their absence.

For that matter, the 1980 eruption DID result in pyroclastic flow and lahars. While 'technically' not lava per se, it's a small distinction that probably mattered little to any life caught in the path.

As for "hijacking the thread", I'll just note that you are the one who interjected St. Helens eruptions into the discussion. Just saying.

[Guest]

I changed my mind about the existence of Bigfoot from accepter to doubter before I began reading and posting at BFF.

The only real revelation I've gained from BFF, so far, is the notion common with proponents that the issue is no longer "do Bigfoot exist." Instead, the issue is either fact gathering to better understand the species, or data collecting that will create a tipping point as far as scientific interest in sasquatch is concerned.