How Has This Forum Affected Your Belief In Bf?

[Incorrigible1]

Condescend much?

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

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

Why wouldn't we?

I mean, it's fairly easy to review the fossil record and say "Yes, there are white tailed deer in the fossil record; check. Yes, there are black bear in the fossil record; check. Etc." and right on down the line for all (known) extant species.

Now of course, the absence of any extinct species means that we either will have no knowledge of their past existence or that we would have to postulate their existence on the basis of 'missing gaps' in the fossil record.

But yes, we would certainly notice the absence of any extant species in the fossil record.

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

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?

Of course. But the current distribution of chimpanzees is in areas that are not easily searched for fossils.

It's like looking for a needle in a haystack vs. looking for a big spear on a gravel bed. Tropical rain forests tend to offer very poor fossil beds in the absence of any cave systems and there are MANY extant species of animals who live in tropical rain forests for which we have no fossil record. Thus, the absence of any one species is not glaring conspicuous since it's not alone.

However, we're talking about very different situations here in America (and through Beringia). America has many, many very rich, very dense fossil beds/deposits in several different types of geographical terrain.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

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.

Well put. Once someone has decided (or at least just declared) that he KNOWS what "Bigfoot sign" looks like and he KNOWS what "Bigfoot calls" sound like and so forth and so on -and thus crowns himself a "Bigfoot expert"- and approaches every situation with the premise that "Bigfoot is real, Bigfoot is here." then he WILL 'find' Bigfoot...especially if he's money-making off the entire premise.

And anyone who asks "Um...Mister Bigfoot Expert; how do you KNOW that broken branch was broken by Bigfoot? And how do you KNOW that howl you just howled and that hoot you just hooted are the same as those hooted by Bigfoot?" is met with a scornful "Because: I am an Bigfoot expert! And I said so. Just ask any other Bigfoot experts and they will tell you that I -like them- am indeed a Bigfoot expert."

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest bumfish]

Well put. Once someone has decided (or at least just declared) that he KNOWS what "Bigfoot sign" looks like and he KNOWS what "Bigfoot calls" sound like and so forth and so on -and thus crowns himself a "Bigfoot expert"- and approaches every situation with the premise that "Bigfoot is real, Bigfoot is here." then he WILL 'find' Bigfoot...especially if he's money-making off the entire premise.

Thank you and exactly, proclaiming yourself as an "expert" on a creature that hasn't been proven to science is out of place. The money making side of it raises eyebrows as well. The financial gain out of the Bigfoot phenomenon can cause problems and raise a lot of suspicion on someone's motives. Does anyone know how you can contact any key BFRO members, I don't want to cause any offence just have a civilised discussion with one of them regarding the organisations aims etc.

[Guest]

Why wouldn't we?

I mean, it's fairly easy to review the fossil record and say "Yes, there are white tailed deer in the fossil record; check. Yes, there are black bear in the fossil record; check. Etc." and right on down the line for all (known) extant species.

Now of course, the absence of any extinct species means that we either will have no knowledge of their past existence or that we would have to postulate their existence on the basis of 'missing gaps' in the fossil record.

But yes, we would certainly notice the absence of any extant species in the fossil record.

So, no currently unknown species can be known in the future? If something is missing in the record does that mean it could not have existed, or could it mean we haven't yet found it and placed it in the "record"?

[Guest LAL]

However, we're talking about very different situations here in America (and through Beringia). America has many, many very rich, very dense fossil beds/deposits in several different types of geographical terrain.

And most are entirely in the wrong areas and/or epochs. Can you point me to one in the very volcanic Cascade Range? Mississipian remnants don't count. A couple of primate teeth have been found at John Day, of course, but Ekgmowechashala lived 25 mya.

Gigantopithecus blacki is reliably dated to 300.000 years ago. Apparently Rink was premature with the 100,000. In any event there are only three jaws extant (last I read) of this long-lived and widespread species. The jaws from Vietnam were dragged into a cave by porcupines, were they not? Exploration of the cave is a story in itself. If it weren't for Chinese apothecaries we might not have the teeth. Berengia is currently under water, mostly. Not the best place for a dig, IMO.

This forum keeps giving me déjà vu. Why is that?

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

So, no currently unknown species can be known in the future?

Yes, of course. But the ability of "currently unknown species" to remain hidden is proportionate to their size, overall morphology, habits and even the size and situation of their environ. In other words, 'we' find new species all the time: but they're small species of "previously unknown to science" frogs that are easy to miss or overlook as being a 'new' species/sub species. Or they're previously UNIDENTIFIED as a 'new' or separate species/subspecies as in the case of the African Forest Elephant being genetically different from African Savannah Elephant, etc. In other words, the African Forest Elephant wasn't "unknown"...it just wasn't recognized as being a separate species/subspecies of African elephant. That's a big difference.

Is it "possible" that a huge -as in bigger than a gorilla!- ape or other hominid lives in America and has been living here for thousands (maybe TENS of thousands of years) and has never left a single tooth anywhere in the fossil record? It's "possible" that a midget will win the next slam dunk contest...but so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. Is it "possible" that a huge -as in bigger than a gorilla!- ape or other hominid lives in America in this day and age of modern, advanced technology being fairly cheap and easily available to the average person and yet nobody has a good, clear, incontrovertible series of photos from a trail cam or a video? It's "possible" but so unlikely as to be statically impossible.

50 years ago when the PG film was made, only a fairly small percentage of people owned a video camera. Nowadays, virtually EVERONE owns a video camera if only a cell phone camera. Add to that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of trail cams, deer cams, etc....a larger population of people who head to the woods...and the box that huge -as in bigger than a gorilla!- ape or other hominid can 'hide out' in the woods is getting smaller and smaller.

It's a favorite claim of Bigfoot BELIEVERS that "You may not accept that Bigfoot has been proven to exist but you cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist!" That might have been true 50 years ago in the time of PG...but that's not really true anymore.

[Guest CaptainMorgan]

It's also "conceivable" and more likely that all of the reports are mis-identificationa, hoaxes, and so forth. The degree of "conceivability" correlates to the degree of "want to believability" of the bleever. [/i]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fossils are so common as to not even be in the realm of 'extraordinary'...and yet there's not even a single, mundane Bigfoot tooth to show for the tens of thousands (at least) of Bigfoot which have supposedly roamed this continent for thousands if not tens of thousands of years. "Conceivable" -? Maybe. Likely? Not at all.

I respectfully suggest that either you never read these reports, or you are also biased by the degree of "want to NOT believe". "Conceivability" here pales against the weight of hundreds of reports of a bipedal animal . . fishing . . walking . . clacking or throwing rocks . . running at 40mh down the interstate . . stepping over a fence with a pig under each arm . . picking up rocks with one hand and collecting mice . . and on and on and on and on and on. Is it also conceivable to you that bears have apposable thumbs? That bears throw sticks or rocks? I could keep typing on this same line of logic but I think it's wasted on you.

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.

There are gaps in the NA fossil record of many species. No dino bones for multiple periods in Chicago or the Great Lakes or a lot of the Midwest. The potential fossil record was scrubbed off by ice sheets so we're lucky to even find (more recent) mastadon and mammoth fossils which existed in HUGE quantities. If this form of man entered NA much later the evidence could still be largely negated in all northern regions by ice sheets, so you can't speak in absolutes here. If low numbers of this species existed perpetually and no bones were ever left in areas conducive for preservation, then again we would have a non existent fossil record.

This forum keeps giving me déjà vu. Why is that?

I was just thinking of you when I posted this. You keep having to defend the same half-truths and same tired arguments of these guys over and over again.

.

Edited July 11, 2011 by CaptainMorgan

[Guest LAL]

http://www.msnbc.msn...-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?

It helped that someone was there to dig.

2011-1967 + 44 years this October, BBQ,

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

And most are entirely in the wrong areas and/or epochs. Can you point me to one in the very volcanic Cascade Range?

Your challenge is not a little bit ambiguous. What IS (supposedly) the wrong correct areas and/or epochs?

Gigantopithecus blacki is reliably dated to 300.000 years ago. Apparently Rink was premature with the 100,000.

And that makes the BIG gap in the last known occurrence of Giganto into an even BIGGER gap for Bigfoot to leap to its alleged existence today.

In any event there are only three jaws extant (last I read) of this long-lived and widespread species.

And thousands of teeth.

The jaws from Vietnam were dragged into a cave by porcupines, were they not?

I don't recall ever anyone claiming that porcupines dragged the jawbones into a cave. I do seem to recall some of the Giganto fossils shows teeth marks that were identified as probably those of porcupines. Although bite marks would indicate that action/behavior by porcupines, I don't see how that proves any other action/behavior by porcupines. For that matter, the significance of whether or not porcupines were out gathering Giganto jawbones are just gnawing on them is lost on me but it seems very important to you. Can you expand on that premise to include elaborating on any significance?

Exploration of the cave is a story in itself. If it weren't for Chinese apothecaries we might not have the teeth.

Right...but here in America, we have many hundreds if not thousands of fossil beds that are not down in dangerous caves...along with many hundreds if not thousands of professional researchers and many thousands if not tens of thousands of amateur collectors who are out scouring the fossil beds, the boxes of fossils at mineral/fossil shows, etc. vs. pounding them up to make Chinese folk medicine.

And nobody's finding any ape fossils.

Berengia is currently under water, mostly. Not the best place for a dig, IMO.

That's a common misconception. You're referring to the Bering LAND BRIDGE but Beringia included/includes the adjacent (and extant) land masses in Siberia and Alaska...those areas are famous for the number of fossils and even intact, frozen carcasses of extinct (and extant) animals.

This forum keeps giving me déjà vu. Why is that?

Umm...'Cause you believe in that kind of stuff -?

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

I respectfully suggest that either you never read these reports, or you are also biased by the degree of "want to NOT believe". "Conceivability" here pales against the weight of hundreds of reports of a bipedal animal . . fishing . . walking . . clacking or throwing rocks . . running at 40mh down the interstate . . stepping over a fence with a pig under each arm . . picking up rocks with one hand and collecting mice . . and on and on and on and on and on. Is it also conceivable to you that bears have apposable thumbs? That bears throw sticks or rocks? I could keep typing on this same line of logic but I think it's wasted on you.

Where are the photos of all of these Bigfoot "picking up rocks with one hand and collecting mice" with the other? Where are the videos of Bigfoot "stepping over a fence with a pig under each arm"? I mean, we HAVE photos, videos and -gasp!- even BODIES of bears. No photos, no video, no bodies (or even itty-bitty little pieces) of Bigfoot.

Thanks.

There are gaps in the NA fossil record of many species.

Not for extant species.

Thanks.

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

It helped that someone was there to dig.

Implying....what, exactly -?

2011-1967 + 44 years this October, BBQ,

[Guest]

There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils. There aren’t any fossils so it can’t exist. It can’t exist because there are no fossils...

I’ll see your circular logic and raise you another straw man. Bigfoot isn’t logical, and neither are most of it’s arguers (for or against).

[Guest LAL]

Your challenge is not a little bit ambiguous. What IS (supposedly) the wrong correct areas and/or epochs?

The PNW is prime habitat and may support a population of sasquatches. 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?

http://en.wikipedia....of_fossil_sites

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

And that makes the BIG gap in the last known occurrence of Giganto into an even BIGGER gap for Bigfoot to leap to its alleged existence today.

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

And thousands of teeth.

1100, last I read.

I don't recall ever reading that porcupines dragged the jawbones into a cave. I do seem to recall some of the Giganto fossils shows teeth marks that were identified as probably those of porcupines.

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

Right...but here in America, we have many hundreds if not thousands of fossil beds that are not down in dangerous caves...along with many hundreds if not thousands of professional researchers and many thousands if not tens of thousands of amateur collectors who are out scouring the fossil beds, the boxes of fossils at mineral/fossil shows, etc. vs. pounding them up to make Chinese folk medicine.

And nobody's finding any ape fossils.

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

That's a common misconception. You're referring to the Bering LAND BRIDGE but Beringia included/includes the adjacent (and extant) land masses in Siberia and Alaska...those areas are famous for the number of fossils and even intact, frozen carcasses of extinct (and extant) animals.

Such as grazing animals and bears that utilized caves? Berengia extended several hundred miles into the continents on either side.

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

Umm...'Cause you believe in that kind of stuff -?

Probably because it's all been discussed on another forum.

Excuse my lame attempt to tie the post to the topic. Maybe this all belongs on the bones thread?