Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 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? It is a bit more difficult to find evidence of fossilized humans in North America, though of course more recent material and other evidence of occupation (e.g., stone tools) is abundant. I did find a paper, however, that lists at least 6 different sites in North America from which human fossils have been recovered. I would assume there are more by now, as the paper is now 20+ years old: Stafford, T. W., Jr., P. E. Hare, L. Currie, A. J. T. Jull, and D. Donahue. 1990. Accuracy of North American human skeletal ages. Quaternary Research 34: 111–120.
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) 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. When eye-witness accounts are all that keep you from outright skepticism like me, then yes. Special pleading becomes necessary. There is tons of evidence of fires created in the woods. Who is to say all can be attributed to campers and vagrants? Who the heck investigates every fire lit? Especially ones in remote areas (if they are even seen)? They eat the bones too? They could use them for medicine, tools, etc until there wasn't much left to identify and would hardly be recognized as bone fragment. It is kind of hard to say what they do since there are only fleeting glimpses seemingly at their discretion. Any number of things could be happening that would seem preposterous to us but would make perfect sense to a wooded indigenous people unwilling to be found (as we have recently seen in South America). 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. What data? I thought your position was always that there is no "data"? Sometimes you confuse me. You spend your time ripping the data to shreads and then want to reference it? I don't get it. As for the rest, unusual by what standards? Western Civilization? Do we have any hard evidence of what Neands and Denos did to honor their dead? If so, I would love to read it. 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. I am much more willing to accept that you are being flip in the face of multiple arguments and agree it an be tough to keep up multiple fronts at once. I am not trying to tear you ideas down, just using you as a sound board to question my own ideas as usual. Hopefully, in the process you can see there may still be a remote possibility these creatures can exist and be very different than what we could possibly imagine (and still be physical/non-paranormal). There has to be a better reason then mass halucination or misidentification. Edited October 20, 2011 by HairyGreek
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 It is a bit more difficult to find evidence of fossilized humans in North America, though of course more recent material and other evidence of occupation (e.g., stone tools) is abundant. I did find a paper, however, that lists at least 6 different sites in North America from which human fossils have been recovered. I would assume there are more by now, as the paper is now 20+ years old: Stafford, T. W., Jr., P. E. Hare, L. Currie, A. J. T. Jull, and D. Donahue. 1990. Accuracy of North American human skeletal ages. Quaternary Research 34: 111–120. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm
Guest 127 Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) There has to be a better reason then mass halucination or misidentification. You left out a few options. Story telling/lore and monetary motivated hoaxes as well. I'd like to ask you what reason are people reporting to see mermaids, fairies, elves, aliens, ghosts, unicorns? Why and how is the bigfoot phenomenon different? Thanks. Edited October 20, 2011 by 127
Guest StankApe Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 You left out a few options. Story telling/lore and monetary motivated hoaxes as well. I'd like to ask you what reason are people reporting to see mermaids, fairies, elves, aliens, ghosts, unicorns? Why and how is the bigfoot phenomenon different? Thanks. I have never met a reasonable, non"out there" person who has said they saw mermaids, fairies, aliens or unicorns. Nor have I met anyone who has seen a "ghost" yet I have had good sane people tell me stories that clearly troubled them in regards to some sort of phenomena (I myself have had a strange experience regarding something I couldn't readily explain, but IMO, that doesn't mean "ghost"). But I see Bigfoot as an entirely different thing. It may not exist, or it may just be people are misinterpreting bears. But it's hard to imagine that EVERY sighting is a misconstrued bear, a hoax or a hallucination... It's why i haven't completely ruled out the possiblity of Bigfoot existing. We can debate the PGF until we rot, but IMO, the plethora of sightings by reasonable , non-crazy, people is more compelling. (and just to head of a possible rebuttal at the pass, true there are lots of UFO sightings by credible people, but our govt has several experimental aircraft flying around at any given moment I suspect, I don't think there are any experimental hominids roaming about)
Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Special pleading becomes necessary. I don't know about "necessary." Like I wrote earlier, I'd just leave it as "I don't know why there are no bigfoot fossils." They could use them for medicine, tools, etc . . . a wooded indigenous people unwilling to be found . . . Again, sure. But such explanations require the invention of material culture not reported for such creatures. What data? I thought your position was always that there is no "data"? Sometimes you confuse me. You spend your time ripping the data to shreads and then want to reference it? I don't get it. The data are the likelihood that burial preserves bodies to enhance preservation. The data are also negative data, in terms of the lack of data that bigfoots make fires (and pyres). The latter are anecdotal data derived from the alleged eyewitness encounters of bigfoots. Do we have any hard evidence of what Neands and Denos did to honor their dead? If so, I would love to read it. Enjoy. There has to be a better reason then mass halucination or misidentification. 1) Why does there have to be a "better" reason? 2) There are other reasons than these two that do not require a physical bigfoot.
Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 http://www.scienceda...41118104010.htm Excellent - thanks. Unless I missed it though, this site revealed human stuff rather than human fossils.
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Excellent - thanks. Unless I missed it though, this site revealed human stuff rather than human fossils. True, but it was all I could find quickly that was somewhat relevant. Your other post is too hard to handle using my phone. Lol. @127 - show me a creature with as many sightings as Bigfoot/Yeti that corroborate, then we can talk.
Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 ...Jobian patience with some posts in this thread. Hey, watch the religious references.
Guest 127 Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) True, but it was all I could find quickly that was somewhat relevant. Your other post is too hard to handle using my phone. Lol. @127 - show me a creature with as many sightings as Bigfoot/Yeti that corroborate, then we can talk. A creature? Or do you mean a subject? I have yet to see a bigfoot creature, so for now it remains a legend and a subject we can discuss. If you want a comparable subject with substantially more witnesses/photos/videos, try aliens or ghosts. Edited October 20, 2011 by 127
Guest LAL Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) 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? Nope. 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? The forests were more northerly at the time (spruce made it to the southern coast of the Bering Land Bridge), there were groves of poplar and scrub willow. What would a forest creature find to eat in grasslands? I checked some of those Kansas reports when someone was making this point and found there were rivers, scrub, trees, even bears in the area. Kansas has a max of 3 reports in a county (BFRO site) - some only 1 or 2 if any. Compare to Washington. The Ohio River Valley is still somewhat forested, isn't it, if not mostly? Looks like habitat to me. The Kiamichis are open parkland compared to the Cascades but they're still forested. 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. The first site listed Stonehenge. I don't think that's a fossil. A giant sloth was found under Sea-Tac. My point is there are no beds that I could find full of forest-dwelling Pleistocene fauna. I have a hard time imagining our hominoid grazing. 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. Sure, and the lone black bear fossil I found a few years ago Googling on this very question was in a cave. Black bears are abundant in the PNW. Note that most are tundra dwellers and their predators. I don't think a bipedal ape that may have evolved in bamboo forests would have fared too well in such an environment. Along the coast is a different matter. So bigfoots only migrate through Ohio, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky, etc? They're wintering in Florida and summering in the Cascades or something? Not at all. They may be resident in the wilder areas. There could be a subspecies adapted to swamps. I'm saying they may only pass through unsuitable habitat. Other species disperse, don't they? We have black bears in the West and East. How did they get to Kentucky? 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. But not where the banks are basalt. Rapid burial helps but then the carcasses stay buried until something or someone uncovers them. Why aren't fossils found every time the kids go wading or dad goes fishing? Yes it does: Quaternary. Oops! I should have spent another thirty seconds on the site. I was reading from the bottom up. Edited October 21, 2011 by LAL
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) A creature? Or do you mean a subject? I have yet to see a bigfoot creature, so for now it remains a legend and a subject we can discuss. If you want a comparable subject with substantially more witnesses/photos/videos, try aliens or ghosts. Pretty sure I said "creature". The Bigfoot vs Aliens/UFOs sightings argument rages away in another thread. Go join it if you wish. If you want to talk ghosts and Bigfoot, there is a thread about that too. If you want to address the subject of Bigfoot in the context of the discussion Saskeptic and I are having, by all means contribute something meaningful and I will address it. If you would rather bait me with antagonistic arguments you can do that as well. You won't get farther than this post though. Edited October 21, 2011 by HairyGreek
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Pretty sure I said "creature". The Bigfoot vs Aliens/UFOs sightings argument rages away in another thread. Go join it if you wish. If you want to talk ghosts and Bigfoot, there is a thread about that too. If you want to address the subject of Bigfoot in the context of the discussion Saskeptic and I are having, by all means contribute something meaningful and I will address it. If you would rather bait me with antagonistic arguments you can do that as well. You won't get farther than this post though. HairyGreek: The point is not to be antagonistic nor baiting. Simply put, the bigfoot phenomenon does not compare with other rare animals or any other "creatures". The only comparable subjects (as far as so many witnesses and no proof) are other social constructs. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm open to hearing it. Can you name any instance of an real/live animal being sighted so often over many years with no real animal produced or photographed in an unambiguous manor? The only comparable subjects were other social constructs. It is not meant in a condescending way or to mock.
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Understood. Thanks for taking a different tact. Well, they are smaller scale, and both are known to be once living creatures (or currently live in another area), but large black cats in the UK and Tasmanian Tigers spring to mind. Edited October 21, 2011 by HairyGreek
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 HairyGreek: The point is not to be antagonistic nor baiting. Simply put, the bigfoot phenomenon does not compare with other rare animals or any other "creatures". The only comparable subjects (as far as so many witnesses and no proof) are other social constructs. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm open to hearing it. Can you name any instance of an real/live animal being sighted so often over many years with no real animal produced or photographed in an unambiguous manor? The only comparable subjects were other social constructs. It is not meant in a condescending way or to mock. I would say the Thylacine qualifies.. But that was a known animal and the debate is over extinction I guess. But (and remember I'm an optimistic skeptic here) one could say that MOST large mammals discovered over the last 200 years started out as local legends or myths until they were discovered. That doesn't mean Bigfoot exists (far from it,evidence is still required ) but it does mean that the possibility for Bigfoot still exists. Heck, scientists now are debating whether or not there may be an even bigger giant squid yet unseen in the deep ocean. 100 feet long with saucer sized suckers!!! YIKES!! Is there direct evidence? Not yet, not even photos, but there are scars on Sperm Whales bigger than any known squid. Plus they already know of the existence of 2 other large squid (Giant Squid and the Colossal Squid). So, they keep searching.
Recommended Posts