This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Guest TooRisky]

@TooRisky: To my eyes, everyone has been pretty above board on this thread. Rock's response at the beginning was a little touchy but I haven't seen anything that warrants the negative tone you're taking towards "the skeptics". Also, Kerchak is/was on your side and was asking a friendly question. You might want to slow down a little bit while you're reading/replying.

And the thread title has been debated about and you appear to want it changed. Do you want the topic title changed? And if so, to what specifically? I'd be happy to do that and clear up your original intentions in the opening post (OP).

I have a question to those far more knowledgeable than me: In most forests (even ones without high amounts of rainfall) don't bodies disappear pretty rapidly? And aren't bones rarely fossilized? I'm just curious as to how many *known* animals (their bodies or their fossils) have been simply found by people in the woods. Not killed by guns or cars. Just found naturally, as bigfoot proponents claim bigfoot bodies are. I'm just wondering what the relative ratios are between known animal population and known animal fossils/corpses or if such data exists. Thanks!

You are right... I have been doing some self reflection and i need to understand the skeptic more, respect their opinion, and not be as aggressive... hell I know what I have seen and i am not to be told it was not what it was.... But to go into an arguement, naw I have better things to do.... So this has gotten to me and I am ok with it... skeptics have a right to say what they will, and I know what I saw... the end... LET THE WATER BALLOONS FLY... LOL...

Edited September 24, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest TooRisky]

"I consider myself the wisest skeptic on the board, but since I'm over 6' tall and nearly 270 lbs, I might even be the biggest"

Close.

NS

Sorry no Seal of your size ever took a Ranger... Wisest, not in challenging a Ranger... Just setting that to a end... Seals are for swimming, do not come in my AO... LOL

[Guest alex]

I dodged nothing. The reason you don't stumble across a Giganto body while out strolling in the woods, is because they went extinct at least 300,000 years ago. Unless you've mastered time-travel that is. I even gave you the definition of extinct. You did read that part, right?

I have to ask if you're really being serious if you think we should be finding Giganto bodies, even though they've been extinct for 300,000 years or more. Maybe you need to clearly define the terms of your argument.

RayG

I meant complete skeletons of them in China, why are we missing these giant's which lived in fossilization havens, it is damning

[Guest Kerchak]

It is my belief that sasquatches are rapidly approaching extinction in the United States. I suspect there are still remnant populations in Oregon, and that Washington is the last meaningful population, but it, too, is rapidly going extinct. I believe the last stronghold of these creatures is in British Columbia.

And southeast Alaska.

I too have a gut feeling they are probably on the way out. I don't have a gut feeling they are widespread and in almost every state.

I don't see why it's difficult to have the theory that there may be smoke somewhere but that there doesn't have to be a raging fire everywhere. Because not all of these reports are true it doesn't follow that none of them are true.

A lot of skeptics seem to get stuck in the "you have to account for all the reports and sightings everywhere". No you don't. An Ogopogo enthusiast doesn't have to account for Champ.

[Guest]

Because the mods won't let me use the more appropriate word "denialist" instead of "skeptic".

Was this addressed in a different sub-forum? I suppose it depends on the context, but I don't see anything wrong with the term as long as it isn't used insultingly. Bigfoot denialism and "you're a denialist of reality and that's why you can't understand my super-awesome arguments!" are different things. The way you were using the term in this thread is 100% ok. Clarity is a good thing.

[Drew]

I have a question to those far more knowledgeable than me: In most forests (even ones without high amounts of rainfall) don't bodies disappear pretty rapidly? And aren't bones rarely fossilized? I'm just curious as to how many *known* animals (their bodies or their fossils) have been simply found by people in the woods. Not killed by guns or cars. Just found naturally, as bigfoot proponents claim bigfoot bodies are. I'm just wondering what the relative ratios are between known animal population and known animal fossils/corpses or if such data exists. Thanks![/color]

Forests can become fossilized. This can happen when volcanoes erupt, or rivers dump silt into an area among other causes.

Creatures who just die while a forest is thriving might not become fossilized. Typical fossilization would occur when an entire area of forest is covered by meters of volcanic ash, or flooded by water containing volcanic ash which rode the flood down from a higher elevation.

Individual fossils might occur if a creature fell into a swamp, or got trapped by a mudslide.

Here are a couple Fossil beds containing what were at the time of inundation, forest areas, in Oregon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Day_Fossil_Beds_National_Monument

When an area is inundated, they will sometimes find evidence of a complete or nearly complete ecosystem.

Leaves, bugs, fish, birds, predators, grazers, scavengers. Never apes in N. America however.

[Guest]

Re: bigfoots in the OKC metro area

No, I do not.

OK, so what do you think is going on in that area? Check out the "multiple encounters" thread. What's alleged in that thread was not one glimpse by one person, but dozens of encounters going back decades by multiple witnesses. They claim to have footprints and hair. If these people have not been encountering bigfoots, then what have they been experiencing? If you think they've been experiencing something that is not bigfoot, then why couldn't those same types of experiences explain bigfoot encounters from the PNW?

I'm not trying to start a bigfoot turf war, I'm just trying to follow logic to its conclusion. If people in central Oklahoma can be 100% convinced that they have bigfoots living down by the creek, then why are they wrong about that while people 100% convinced that there are bigfoots in British Columbia are right?

[Guest]

Whoa, wait a second. Did I miss something, or is this a sarcastic statement?

No, but I could be wrong. We'll see next month.

[Guest RayG]

I meant complete skeletons of them in China, why are we missing these giant's which lived in fossilization havens, it is damning

How so? I assume you mean complete fossils not just skeletons.

RayG

[Huntster]

Re: bigfoots in the OKC metro area

Huntster, on 23 September 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

No, I do not.

OK, so what do you think is going on in that area? Check out the "multiple encounters" thread. What's alleged in that thread was not one glimpse by one person, but dozens of encounters going back decades by multiple witnesses. They claim to have footprints and hair. If these people have not been encountering bigfoots, then what have they been experiencing?

The BFRO database reports 78 total reports in the state of Oklahoma from 1942 to today (68 years). Of those, 2 are from Oklahoma County, where OKC is.

The first was in 1982, was reported to be about 5' tall, 160 lbs, in a snowstorm, and was initially believed to be a kid in a dark snowsuit. The reporter was 15 years old at the time. He reported to be far from any residential area.

I believe that was probably a mis-identified kid in a snowsuit.

The second was in 1999, was also reported by a kid, and I believe this to be a manufactured report.

If you think they've been experiencing something that is not bigfoot, then why couldn't those same types of experiences explain bigfoot encounters from the PNW?

I'm sure they do explain approximately 80% to 90% of the 1,277 reports from California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and British Columbia from the same database.

I'm not trying to start a bigfoot turf war, I'm just trying to follow logic to its conclusion.

You're not following it well from both a habitat or report density perspective. You appear to absolutely refuse to address Glickman's Type A and Type B clusters.

If people in central Oklahoma can be 100% convinced that they have bigfoots living down by the creek, then why are they wrong about that while people 100% convinced that there are bigfoots in British Columbia are right?

Because the habitat and report densities logically tell us otherwise.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest alex]

How so? I assume you mean complete fossils not just skeletons.

RayG

a large population of 10ft 1200 lb apes living only 300,000 years ago in a fossilization haven should have revealeld bodies upon bodies of Gigantopithecus's, but no, we have a jaw and a few teeth, the great apes are some of the rarest animals in the fossil record

[Guest RayG]

You win, I have no idea how that ties in with not stumbling over a body in the Cascades.

RayG

[Guest alex]

You win, I have no idea how that ties in with not stumbling over a body in the Cascades.

RayG

It show's us that bodies and fossils are rarely found in the case of large primates, you will see that people find more bear's dead than Gorilla's, because gorilla's are not as easy to shoot

[Guest RayG]

No, it doesn't. You're arguing apples and oranges, and I have no trouble getting numerous results when I Google images of 'dead gorilla' and 'gorilla skeleton'. You sure your internet is working?

RayG

[Huntster]

Huh, I didn't realize denialist was inappropriate.

Depends on the mod and who is pressing the "report" button.

Based on what you're saying, you're mis-using the word skeptic when you really mean denialist.

Yup. Intentionally.