Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Wouldn't the Loch Ness Monster fit the Bill Tim
Guest 127 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. I don't think that is comparable just due to the large number of sightings of bigfoot, and the widespread distribution of them. 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. Thylacine probably doesn't get sighted nearly as often as bigfoot. (got any numbers?) That said: How often was it spotted before it was discovered? That is what we're talking about with bigfoot. An alleged 7-9 foot adult ape like creature that is spotted thousands of times (most sightings are not in the "deep woods" or wilderness and some even in suburban areas) with no animal being produced, and no unambiguous photos. Thylacine is such a cool animal! I wish they were still around. I agree that most large animals started out as "being seen" by someone. The problem with the bigfoot phenomenon representing a real animal is - it is spotted so often and in so many different enviroments. edited to add: The squids would be cool if discovered. I'm not aware of the number of reports out there of them. Do you have any statistics? Edited October 21, 2011 by 127
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Wouldn't the Loch Ness Monster fit the Bill Tim Definitely!
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) I don't think that is comparable just due to the large number of sightings of bigfoot, and the widespread distribution of them. Thylacine probably doesn't get sighted nearly as often as bigfoot. (got any numbers?) That said: How often was it spotted before it was discovered? That is what we're talking about with bigfoot. An alleged 7-9 foot adult ape like creature that is spotted thousands of times (most sightings are not in the "deep woods" or wilderness and some even in suburban areas) with no animal being produced, and no unambiguous photos. Thylacine is such a cool animal! I wish they were still around. I agree that most large animals started out as "being seen" by someone. The problem with the bigfoot phenomenon representing a real animal is - it is spotted so often and in so many different enviroments. edited to add: The squids would be cool if discovered. I'm not aware of the number of reports out there of them. Do you have any statistics? i don't really keep up with the Thlyacine except when they pop up online with a sighting or on a TV show or something. But, I'm sure that there are plenty of false positive sightings there as people really want them to not be extinct. I reckon one would have to peruse a Taz Tiger forum to get the scoop on those. As far as the Squid go. I know they have found beaks in the stomachs of sperm whales which suggest either a bigger 100+ foot species, or that Colossal and/or Giant Squid get that large. i was watching a steve O'Shea program in Nat Geo i think about squid. Edited October 21, 2011 by StankApe
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) i don't really keep up with the Thlyacine except when they pop up online with a sighting or on a TV show or something. But, I'm sure that there are plenty of false positive sightings there as people really want them to not be extinct. I reckon one would have to peruse a Taz Tiger forum to get the scoop on those. As far as the Squid go. I know they have found beaks in the stomachs of sperm whales which suggest either a bigger 100+ foot species, or that Colossal and/or Giant Squid get that large. i was watching a steve O'Shea program in Nat Geo i think about squid. Beaks are real evidence! Do you happen to have any sources for that online? Sounds fun to look into. Maybe one day someone will find the jawbone of a bigfoot or other body piece to show it is a real biological animal like the squid. I used the comparisons I did because it is quite unprecedented to have such a large number of sightings and no real animal turn up someplace. (or fossils/bones/flesh) Even with the most rare of animals that have been cataloged there are none that had been sighted so often before being cataloged and in populated areas. (nothing even close! I challenge anyone here to find a real animal that has been cataloged that was reported so often before it was discovered) Especially no large animals as bigfoot is purported to be. Also with todays technology and population it confounds this perplexing phenomenon even further. Edited October 21, 2011 by 127
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 I'm with you there 127, I'm not a believer, yet I find myself compelled by the plethora of sightings and videos/photographs. I know most of the stuff out there is either fake, a hunter in camo or a bear/shadow...etc But , if only 1 of these sightings is correct , well... Maybe I have to much faith in people, but they can't all be lying can they? and who spends this much time hoaxing sasquatch (I mean the sightings, apparently lots of people like to make silly videos on you tube). I just wanna be convinced...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) I don't think that is comparable just due to the large number of sightings of bigfoot, and the widespread distribution of them. The UK and Tasmania are hardly the same size as North America so you would need to do a per capita comparison I would think. Edited October 21, 2011 by HairyGreek
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Good point HG. I know that they get some video every year or so, but still nothing that is conclusive as of yet.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 if only 1 of these sightings is correct I just wanna be convinced... What about the PGF film ? Tim
BobZenor Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Saying there is no fossil evidence without even knowing how close a bigfoot is to a modern human isn't valid. Is it supposed to be a valid argument that because they were labeled as erectus that they therefore aren't bigfoot ancestors? That is assuming way too much information from a few fragmentary bones in the majority of cases. It is also assuming way too much about what people think they know about bigfoot. Even in the best cases you don't know how "human" any of the erectus were. That is a subjective opinion and much of it in the past like why they were all called erectus has been recently shown to have been invalid. They weren't likely the first to leave Africa. New fossils have demonstrated that the ancestry and therefore what Asian erectus were is not certain. Not only is it not certain, it was pretty obvious from the evidence even several years ago that some Asian "erectus" were not likely very closely related to modern humans. They had features like enormous jaws, reduced frontal lobes, double occipital crests on top of their heads... Some from the last million years seem to be much closer and probably related to the group that includes early heidelbergensis. There were apparently others in Asia though.(ancestors of floresiensis for example) Lack of recent fossils doesn't mean they went extinct. I have to assume from some attitudes that some people think lack of fossil means they went extinct. Did they in reality suddenly expand into several new species in the last several years or were we just ignorant before. There is no reason to expect that science now has all the species nailed down. It begs the question, what would a bigfoot fossil ancestor a million years ago look like? Assuming that it has to be 8 feet tall doesn't even exclude all "erectus" if you accept the physical anthropologist Krantz's estimation of some of their heights. Inhuman features? I already covered some of that. A better question is which of the erectus in the group called meganthropus, for example, isn't a bigfoot ancestor. I expect the answer to be in the form of "because it is erectus" and "they have fire and tools because they are erectus". People need to reorient their beliefs to incorporate the reality that multiple species/populations existed in the past and how that makes it probably unlikely that they were all technological. They weren't all on some mission to become modern humans and assuming they acted like or had the same niche as modern humans is just wishful thinking and not a logical assumption from the point of view of simple biology. Radiations of new species generally involve new niches and some form of isolation. People really shouldn't assume that common perceptions of what any of the hominids were actually like is necessarily correct. That especially applies as you go back before a million years ago and when there are multiple species. Since there have always been multiple species until fairly recently, it should logically add doubt to how they lived since you can't usually assign tools to ancient bones with much confidence, for example, if there are multiple species. That concept is not simple. For example, it breaks down what people think they knew about habilis as being technological. You wouldn't know if another like rudolfensis made all the tools. That spills into the uncertainty of some Asian erectus since you can't differentiate which lineage they belong to. That is just assuming that you, for some reason, think they can't lose technology. Edited October 21, 2011 by BobZenor 1
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 What about the PGF film ? Tim I have spent a good deal of time perusing it and ....well i can find evidence either way. I know a good deal about makeup and creature suits/masks and effects (i was one of those kids who read all of the fangoria magazines and made masks and painted sculptures and all of that) and considering the era.... it looks like the best suit that was made at that time. (I think it looks better than the 2001 suits , seriously the face looks great) But the movement doesn't look like a person to me and it looks like it has real weight and girth there..... Then again, I look at it and I see some of the problems that have been beaten to death (subjugating "line" the armpit flab..etc) but then I consider that a suit would have been a very expensive thing to have made and (despite the stuff I was told) I doubt an effects man would make a $1000 suit and give it to someone and await payment. He might do that for some huge movie production where he has a paper trail proving deliery and a history with said client, but not with some guy who wants to make a Bigfoot video. I could literally fill this board with logical responses that conclude its a suit/ no its a real animal.... Besides, this is 2011 where's my Hi Def video dadburnit!!! lol
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Pretty much what you find on this forum is what there is for evidence, you have to decide what it is that has you interested and maybe focus on that, i posted about the PGF cause Bill Munns has really taken that into the millennium and in my opinion he might just have at an answer to what it was, person or Squatch. You can go further and read Crowlogic's posts about how Patty might have been one of the last BF, ( not a bad idea ) it will drive ya nuts with all the theory's, it's kinda like buying a house, if you look in too many places you will get way too confused and have too many reasons why not too live in any of those places, but once you settle down you find the answer ~ Tim
Guest Alpinist Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 well stated BobZenor - I think Paleo Anthropology could be called a pseudo-science, so many assumptions being made on so little evidence and obviously millions and billions of pieces of the homo genus puzzle are missing
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Pretty much what you find on this forum is what there is for evidence, you have to decide what it is that has you interested and maybe focus on that, i posted about the PGF cause Bill Munns has really taken that into the millennium and in my opinion he might just have at an answer to what it was, person or Squatch. You can go further and read Crowlogic's posts about how Patty might have been one of the last BF, ( not a bad idea ) it will drive ya nuts with all the theory's, it's kinda like buying a house, if you look in too many places you will get way too confused and have too many reasons why not too live in any of those places, but once you settle down you find the answer ~ Tim I read the Munns report and the associated thread on here. Sometimes the discussion of Patty gets so...well, ill tempered and nitpicky that i kinda ended up glazing over much of the posts... I'm not sure there will ever be any minds changed unless someone found the suit. We both know that even if Munns' final report is extremely well done with all the right T's crossed and I's dotted and he says "It cannot possibly be a man in a suit" that the same arguments (amongst the same people) will pause for about 15 seconds...aaaaaand start right up again!
Guest LAL Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Adrienne Mayor surmised that ancient Greeks and others mistook mammoth bones for those of giant humans. Suppose for a moment mastodons and sasquatches did occupy the same habitat at some time in North America and remains were fossilized together. With such similarity might a mixup have occurred, especially if the bones were fragmented? There's no way to to sort out mineralized bone with DNA testing, I assume.
Recommended Posts