Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Wait, why does a map titled "Washington State Fossils" have a picture of Bigfoot on it among the other animals in the state's fossil record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hobnob with mastodons, did they? Potentially. When and how do you think they got there? On second thought maybe St. Helens lava should be checked for possible natural molds like the one of Diceratherium above. Big shovel - check. Big pickax - check. Because there's no precedent for finding any fossils in areas that are volcanically active? BTW, look just left of the Gomphothere . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirademan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Sorry, double-post! Edited October 19, 2011 by tirademan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirademan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Moreover, bigfoots are reported from Australia, Sumatra, Nepal, China, and Russia, and again, in markedly different habitats. Assuming bigfoots dispersed across Beringia from the Old World into the New, they must have occurred for generations in varied habitats ranging from temperate and coniferous forests to grassland and tundra. This is why the "no fossils because they live in forests with acidic soils" excuse is not supported. If bigfoots were only reported from such places, it would be a perfectly viable explanation for the lack of a fossil record, but they're not, so it isn't. I have a question. Since we bipedal humans have also managed to find a way to exist in all of these areas, what does our fossil record look like? I find it sort of funny that we have made it all around the planet on our two legs, but it's not possible for an 8-footer to do the same? As to dead bodies, who says's no one has found a dead body? What you're REALLY asking is why someone hasn't found a dead body, recognized it for what it was (regardless of decomposition and scavenging), and then had the wherewithal to drag it out of the woods. I'd imagine someone, sometime, HAS come across a maggot-filled pile of black fur and said, "That's weird." and kept on moving. Also, what I saw was way too small to be a person in a suit, arms pumping, and I almost hit it at 55mph. Not much chance of misidentification, which IS a red herring. People don't invent a "nonexistent" animal in their brains to account for a known one or a fur blur. I saw a "Jawa" as that was the peg that fit the hole. My brain picked the thing that most resembled what I saw in the brief milliseconds it was in my headlights. I didn't say I saw a small bigfoot (as I'd never seen one of those), and was also in North Carolina, so like most probably didn't picture bigfoot being there. I even chalked it up to seeing things to satisfy myself and kept driving for 3 more hours until the sun came up! But it never felt like anything other than a deer jumping in front of my car, which I had happen several times in Wisconsin. Then there's those countless other's stories from across time with endless details to think about too. Ben's a nice guy, but when I showed him several old detailed newspaper stories, he glanced at them and said they were probably 1800s fiction. Obviously sasquatch are smart and avoid humans when possible, but we don't try too hard either! Not much money out there looking. tirademan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Yes, the interactive fossil map above shows the "Legendary Bigfoot" sort of near Mt. St. Helens and NW of Sam Hill's non-functional Stonehenge. They're there, folks, they're there! But seriously, most sightings in Washington State are in and around the west slope of the Cascades - wet, acid soils. Nothing lasts long in them. Great Ape fossils are extremely rare because of their habitat. There was a prmate tooth or two found in the John Day Fossil Beds in Oregon. Unfortunately the fossils date to 25 mya. That's a bit old for the Pleistocene. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Obviously they're smart and avoid humans, but we don't try too hard either! tirademan The missing fossil records is one of many telling signs about the bigfoot phenomenon. I wanted to touch on a couple of what I feel are very relevant and important points brought up. We often hear the above quoted by proponents. To the likes of "they're elusive, they're stealth. they avoid humans, that's why we haven't found them." I would like to argue that those statements are hardly true if you take a closer look at sighting reports. Bigfoot is purported to enter peoples camp sites, to steal food from homes, to bang on peoples campers or throw rocks at people. Other reports have bigfoot habituated and living near humans. Many are sighted by drivers crossing roadways. Another interesting thing is you have organizations like the BFRO that put together expeditions (many per year) for paying customers. Almost all of their expeditions report some type of interactions with bigfoot. In fact since July 1st 2011 the BFRO has published 30 "class a" sighting reports. Which is it? Elusive and avoiding humans or are people experiencing sasquatch regularly during expeditions and habituations and sometimes in suburban areas? The reported behavior attributes of bigfoot are puzzling to say the least. Also puzzling are the proponents who describe them in very contradictory ways. They are elusive and avoid humans, whats why we don't have one. But bigfoot can be baited with apples. There is a huge problem going on with the bigfoot phenomenon if you want to believe it represents a live animal. If we are to believe even a portion of the most credible reports - why hasn't one been collected yet? Too rare and elusive? Take a look at this map of sighting reports. Certainly seems like bigfoot is everywhere - yet nowhere. This is not unprecedented though. How many other animals have reported sightings in those numbers and remain unclassified? No reliable evidence. Not even a good photograph? It is unprecendented in the live animal world with a few exceptions. Unicorns, mermaids, nessi, these type of social constructs do get sighted and have no physical proof of their existence. No good photos, no good videos. Heck even UFOs have much more selection of photos and videos and many more witnesses. One could argue there is much more proof of their existence than of bigfoot. We know for a fact UFO's exist. They are "unidentified flying objects" which does not necessarily mean alien or otherworldly. It simply means unidentified. The only comparisons available with bigfoot are things such as ghosts, mermaids, unicorns, aliens etc. I would venture to say that many more people claim to see ghosts than bigfoot as well. There is a great explanation for this. Bigfoot is most likely a social construct. It mimics the other social constructs perfectly. Opinions? Edited October 19, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Social contructs usually don't leave footprints behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) I have a question. Since we bipedal humans have also managed to find a way to exist in all of these areas, what does our fossil record look like? A few minutes with grade-school level Google Fu was all it took to find maps of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens neanderthal fossil sites. There are at least 27 of the former and 45 of the latter. There are at least 15 sites that have yielded "early modern Homo sapiens" (i.e., "Cro-Magnon") fossils. Note that many of these sites yielded multiple fossils. I find it sort of funny that we have made it all around the planet on our two legs, but it's not possible for an 8-footer to do the same? Who said it's not possible? The problem is that there's no physical evidence that this is the case. What you're REALLY asking is why someone hasn't found a dead body, recognized it for what it was (regardless of decomposition and scavenging), and then had the wherewithal to drag it out of the woods. I'd imagine someone, sometime, HAS come across a maggot-filled pile of black fur and said, "That's weird." and kept on moving. Maybe so, but they would've reacted likewise to all the other dead things out there that have been collected because somebody took a closer look. There's no reason to assume that people would be less likely to investigate a bigfoot carcass than they would any other dead, hairy thing in the woods. Edited October 19, 2011 by Saskeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Social contructs usually don't leave footprints behind. No they don't but people can and do, and some are misidentifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Wait, why does a map titled "Washington State Fossils" have a picture of Bigfoot on it among the other animals in the state's fossil record? I'm on your side here, but that map has DB Cooper's loot on it too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I'm on your side here, but that map has DB Cooper's loot on it too! Some kids actually found some of DB Cooper's loot buried in the banks of the Columbia River (early 1980's I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I was just bein silly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 A few minutes with grade-school level Google Fu was all it took to find maps of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens neanderthal fossil sites. There are at least 27 of the former and 45 of the latter. There are at least 15 sites that have yielded "early modern Homo sapiens" (i.e., "Cro-Magnon") fossils. Note that many of these sites yielded multiple fossils. The thing is, you really don't know they went extinct or didn't evolve into bigfoot, and thus no bigfoot. It's that pesky negative that skeptics can't prove, remember? Once we have a bigfoot body, we'll come up with some nifty ideas about where it is represented in the fossil record , until some other fossil gives us a better explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 It would be nice to sit down and debate these 10 points with this person... Seems to convienent and cowardly, like a drive by shooting, to write this and run away without any rebuttle... Another fully flawed article in need of balence and correction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Potentially. When and how do you think they got there? The mastodons? Which species in which era? This one preferred open spruce and forest edges..... ......and Ohio. Mastodons inhabited Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and Central America from the Oligocene through the Pleistocene. I know of one hominid primate that hobnobbed with them in North America. They didn't leave much in the way of fossils either - just plenty of artifacts. Because there's no precedent for finding any fossils in areas that are volcanically active? I thought so until a Brazilian geologist on another forum came upside my head and pointed me to Peru. Hot lava does tend to be hard on bone, though. Is anyone digging in the upper Toutle Valley? BTW, look just left of the Gomphothere . . . At the quail, the salmon or the trilobite? Further left there seems to be a jackalope. The map doesn't seem to be especially scientific, does it? Have you found me a fossil bed in Washington where Pleistocene forest-dwelling fauna is preserved yet? A tar pit would be nice............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts