10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's A Bust

[Guest]

Yes it makes sense, but it would mean that wood bison are not a good analogy for bigfoot. This is because wood bison avoided detection by living someplace really difficult for humans to access. Bigfoots would have escaped detection all these years not by living places no one has ever explored, but by engaging their brains to an uncanny degree so as to avoid detection in many places where humans occur rather frequently. Thus, there is no analogy for bigfoot.

The problem with super-stealth being the mechanism by which bigfoots have avoided collection is that it's the sort of skill that declines markedly after death . . .

And where exactly should we look, Sas? If there were 10000 bf and they all died at the same time, then that would be 10000 (or less if they died in groups) square acres out of over 750 MILLION square acres of wilderness, etc. And in about 30 days they would all be gone, recycled by nature.

No they don't but people can and do, and some are misidentifications.

In order to falsify a body of tracks such as those studied by Dr Fahrenbach for his track trait distribution paper you would have to have a large body of scientifically educated hoaxers (to get the details right), operating over a large geographic region (to explain the coverage) over a number of years. They would have to have a tight degree of communication, education, and discipline to assemble and perpetrate such a hoax.

I await your evidence for such a hoax being perpetrated.

[Guest 127]

That requires expensive and sophisticated labwork and technicians to accomplish. JimmyJoeBubbaBob is not going to be whipping up some simulated bf dna in the bed of his pickup truck.

Who is the funder behind your alleged plot to fake BF dna? What lab is doing the work? What do they hope to gain from it? What documentary evidence do you have connecting ANY bf dna sample to such an effort?

I await your answers to these questions. I'd wait with held breath, but I'd die of anoxia waiting.

Who said anything about Jimmyjoebubbabob or that there was a fake dna sample someplace? I was trying to caution enthusiasts to not accept DNA evidence alone. In my opinion flesh, bone, hair are much better and reliable sources for DNA samples. (in other words not just a swabbed sample) I think your post was quite premature and perhaps even immature. There is no accusation of a plot, nor any accusations of fake samples at all in my post.

In order to falsify a body of tracks such as those studied by Dr Fahrenbach for his track trait distribution paper you would have to have a large body of scientifically educated hoaxers (to get the details right), operating over a large geographic region (to explain the coverage) over a number of years. They would have to have a tight degree of communication, education, and discipline to assemble and perpetrate such a hoax.

I await your evidence for such a hoax being perpetrated.

Are you stating that bigfoot prints have never been hoaxed? Lets be clear about your intent.

[Guest]

Are you stating that bigfoot prints have never been hoaxed? Lets be clear about your intent.

No.

[Guest 127]

Mulder: Perhaps you would like to address this.

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?

[Guest]

Are you stating that bigfoot prints have never been hoaxed? Lets be clear about your intent.

No.

[Guest 127]

No.

Mulder: Perhaps you can point me to examples of confirmed authentic bigfoot prints.

[Guest]

Mulder: Perhaps you would like to address this.

It's been addressed repeatedly many times over. It's argument from ignorance and arguement from assumption and it's been refuted over and over and over again.

Do some Archive diving and read up on it yourself. I feel no need to do your research work for you.

Mulder: Perhaps you can point me to examples of confirmed authentic bigfoot prints.

With what percentage of specified confirmation? Dr Fahrenbach and Dr Meldrum BOTH have collections of cast prints with strong scientific indicators of authenticity. Is it in theory possible they're wrong? It's theoretically possible that the sun may explode before I finish this post, or any of a number of equally implausable things.

I'll take the informed, expert opinion based on scientific observation of Drs Meldrum and Fahrenbach over the assumptions and "what ifs" of Skeptics any day of the week.

[Guest]

What if sasquatch is some sort of spin-off of a known pre-historic man and there is no fossil record to follow because of the range these guys tend to live and die in and that the change in size is somewhat more recent?

Just yesterday I provided information on dozens of sites that have yielded fossils of Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro Magnons. If we ever figure out that "bigfoot" is one of these then yes, that would mean that there is a fossil record for bigfoot, at least in the Old World.

So you are saying they can't be more intelligent then anticipated and their custom is to somehow dispose of their dead in a way unknown to us so that finding a body (fossilized or otherwise) would become very highly unlikely?

What does intelligence have to do with fossilization? As I mentioned a few days ago, options are limited for hiding one's dead. Burying promotes fossilization (witness Neanderthal burial sites among those I passed along yesterday) and burning does not seem to be in the bigfoot toolkit. So what else is there? Are we to assume that every bigfoot family has a giant mortal and pestle to pulverize every one of their clan who dies so that thousands of years later scientists can't uncover their fossils and hypothesize that they might once have existed?

[Guest 127]

It's been addressed repeatedly many times over. It's argument from ignorance and arguement from assumption and it's been refuted over and over and over again.

Do some Archive diving and read up on it yourself. I feel no need to do your research work for you.

Perhaps you could point out the ignorance and arguments from assumption in the post. I see none of the points being refuted. Thanks.

Also, I'd never ask you to research for me.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Just yesterday I provided information on dozens of sites that have yielded fossils of Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro Magnons. If we ever figure out that "bigfoot" is one of these then yes, that would mean that there is a fossil record for bigfoot, at least in the Old World.

It's my best guess if they are real...

What does intelligence have to do with fossilization? As I mentioned a few days ago, options are limited for hiding one's dead. Burying promotes fossilization (witness Neanderthal burial sites among those I passed along yesterday) and burning does not seem to be in the bigfoot toolkit. So what else is there? Are we to assume that every bigfoot family has a giant mortal and pestle to pulverize every one of their clan who dies so that thousands of years later scientists can't uncover their fossils and hypothesize that they might once have existed?

The jury is out on fire as a tool. It certainly wouldn't help them if their goal is to remain undisturbed unless it is on their terms, but I think there are ways around this. I can't prove they use fire any more than you can't prove they don't exist (or use fire for that matter, LOL).

Finally, why oh why did you say:

"Are we to assume that every Bigfoot family has a giant mortal and pestle to pulverize every one of their clan who dies so that thousands of years later scientists can't uncover their fossils and hypothesize that they might once have existed?"

You are trying to make something that may be an actual custom for their dead sound like a conspiracy theory against science. I don't think that is being very intellectually honest considering destroying their bodies could be really what is happening.

Edited October 20, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest]

Um, is Nebraska in the PNW? I thought we were talking about Washington State. When I said under Mt. St. Helens ash would be a good place to look I wasn't joking.

We can just talk about Washington if you'd like to. Are you going to make the case then that the acidic soils of the Cascades are the only place bigfoots have ever and do now occur?

Perhaps I'm hung up on Charles Knight's artwork but I think of mammoths and mastodons as creatures of the open grasslands while our unidentified NA hominoid prefers deep forests.

If bigfoots dispersed through Beringia, then they were creatures of grasslands too. Most people today think of bigfoots as deep forest creatures, but what of the folks in Oklahoma, Kansas, Ohio, etc. who swear that they've seen them in more open environments?

On the other forum I mentioned I spent days if not weeks doing online searches for fossil beds of the right era with the right habitat. The result was zero

I don't understand. I've posted numerous links and actual maps showing locations of fossil sites that broadly overlap the putative distribution and habitats of bigfoots. You're right that the strata don't always match up, but many of them do: Pleistocene deposits producing fossils of creatures that have occurred in North America over the last few tens of thousands of years.

If they migrated from Asia to North America through Berengia the area might well have promoted fossilization, but with it now under ice and water how do we find the fossils?

Again, in mere seconds I found this site describing the fauna of Beringia as known from fossils. It specifically lists 19 different sites that have yielded important fossils from the region.

I think sasquatches are inhabitants of forests and woodlands and possibly swamps. If reports from more arid regions have validity I think you'll find rivers, streams and tree cover nearby. I don't think sasquatches live there now or in the past but they could be passing through en route to new territory. What are the chances they'd get fossilized even if conditions were right?

So bigfoots only migrate through Ohio, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky, etc? They're wintering in Florida and summering in the Cascades or something?

I agree that if bigfoots are real they spend a lot of time in riparian areas, i.e., rivers, streams, and swamps. A funny thing about such places though: they're really good at quickly covering animal carcasses in sediments, a key first step in the fossilization process.

ETA: Saskeptic, this link doesn't include the Pleistocene.

Yes it does: Quaternary.

[Guest]

The jury is out on fire as a tool.

It is? I've been following this phenomenon since the mid-70s, and I haven't even heard an opening argument that bigfoots use fire.

Finally, why oh why did you say:

"Are we to assume that every Bigfoot family has a giant mortal and pestle to pulverize every one of their clan who dies so that thousands of years later scientists can't uncover their fossils and hypothesize that they might once have existed?"

You are trying to make something that may be an actual custom for their dead sound like a conspiracy theory against science. I don't think that is being very intellectually honest considering destroying their bodies could be really what is happening.

You suggested that bigfoots might "do something" with their dead, and that's why they're absent from the fossil record. I proposed two hypotheses for what those "somethings" might be. Logically, burying is not supported because that increases the likelihood that the remains will be preserved. Burning would be the next most likely alternative, but we have no evidence that such creatures use fire. So what else is there? If you would like to continue to explore the discussion, then by all means suggest a plausible thing that bigfoots could do with their dead to keep them from fossilizing. I suggested pulverization. What is intellectually dishonest about that? If anything, I'm the one proposing explanations for you. It's not my fault if those explanations don't really pan out when you take a close look at them. That's why I don't think bigfoots do anything particularly unusual with their dead: the explanations for what those things are and why they might do them are unsatisfactory.

And where exactly should we look, Sas?

The same places where fossils of other animals that share habitats with bigfoots have been recovered. There are hundreds of such sites in North America that have yielded thousands of fossils.

[Guest HairyGreek]

It is? I've been following this phenomenon since the mid-70s, and I haven't even heard an opening argument that bigfoots use fire.

IF they are real, I would say the intelligence required to remain so well hidden would lend itseld to the ability to start a fire when neccesary.

You suggested that bigfoots might "do something" with their dead, and that's why they're absent from the fossil record. I proposed two hypotheses for what those "somethings" might be. Logically, burying is not supported because that increases the likelihood that the remains will be preserved. Burning would be the next most likely alternative, but we have no evidence that such creatures use fire. So what else is there? If you would like to continue to explore the discussion, then by all means suggest a plausible thing that bigfoots could do with their dead to keep them from fossilizing. I suggested pulverization. What is intellectually dishonest about that? If anything, I'm the one proposing explanations for you. It's not my fault if those explanations don't really pan out when you take a close look at them. That's why I don't think bigfoots do anything particularly unusual with their dead: the explanations for what those things are and why they might do them are unsatisfactory.

Outside of fire, perhaps they eat each other or some other form of destruction. Is that really so implausible? What was intellectually dishonest about your statement was you made it sound like the idea of this was to cover up their identity from science throughout the centuries. You knew exactly what I meant; but if I have to spell it out for you, it's not my fault if you can't see this was just a rude way of dissing what could actually be the case. I don't need your help coming up with a hypothesis on what they do to the bodies. As witness by the first quote above about fire, I am thinking outside the box you have been living in since the 70s.

ETA: I like you Sas. I value your opinion; but if you want to get rude and snap at each other you will find I am quite capable in a scrap. Play nice or ignore my posts.

Edited October 20, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest tirademan]

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.

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.

Well, my sixth grade level Bing couldn't inform me if there were any in North America...I think I found one reference, but it was a dead link. So human fossils from other parts of the world, but not North America? I did find a link about a small monkey fossil found in Mississippi.

If that is the case, should the sasquatch fossil investigation be centered where they've found old human fossils? Alternately, have other large ape fossils been found there already?

As for squatch corpses, the chances to investigate are probably fewer than many other species. But I think with today's media coverage leading to overall public knowledge, someone WOULD take the time. Maybe not so in the 1800s or 1941.

tirademan

edit to say I don't think they use fire, but there is an interesting story of one playing with a fire!

Edited October 20, 2011 by tirademan

[Guest]

IF they are real, I would say the intelligence required to remain so well hidden would lend itseld to the ability to start a fire when neccesary.

That's fine, but if you're going to just make things up that they could do without any evidence supporting those things, then that's a form of special pleading. Maybe bigfoots have some technology unknown to us that permits the efficient cremation of a 500-lb animal without smoke or flame, but there's no evidence for such things.

Outside of fire, perhaps they eat each other or some other form of destruction.

They eat the bones too?

What was intellectually dishonest about your statement was you made it sound like the idea of this was to cover up their identity from science throughout the centuries. You knew exactly what I meant;

No, I don't know what you meant. I had already addressed the two most logical ways to dispose of bodies. Neither fit the data. So if we continue down the "disposing of their dead" road, the methods start to get really weird. If bigfoots are doing something so unusual in the internment of their loved ones that fossilization cannot occur, the question of "why" becomes relevant.

I value your opinion; but if you want to get rude and snap at each other you will find I am quite capable in a scrap. Play nice or ignore my posts.

If my humor offends, I am sorry. I hope you can appreciate though (and not directed at you) that I have shown Jobian patience with some posts in this thread.