Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 . . .My use of the Wood Bison as an example is based on their limited intelligence and size. If an animal this big and dumb can hide (regardless of the location), why then could we not leave open the possibility that an animal that is smaller and smarter could be much more adept at hiding (again, regardless of location)? Does that make sense? 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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 So, once again, THIS thread brings to my mind the singular question, "Why does anyone care what this Radford person says or thinks?" All his pontificating means nothing to those who have seen one... and time is bigfoot's enemy. They WILL one day be proven to exist, for better or worse. I just hope it's a LONG time from now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 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 I agree if we're talking about the known behavior of an known species. But for arguments sake, assuming BF is real and undiscovered, we're talking about the unknown behavior of an unknown species. In this case, the unknown behavior is what BF do with their dead. I submit that if remaining hidden is their priority for survival, disposal of the dead may be of premium importance to their kind. Both chimps and elephants have been observed covering their dead with branches and leaves (although, not consistently). Why? Given that most of their lives are wired for survival, I have to think the act of covering their dead in such a way is also wired into their survival instinct. Just thinking out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 . . . I have to think the act of covering their dead in such a way is also wired into their survival instinct. Just thinking out loud. Yep, we can envision ways that bigfoots might keep themselves or loved ones from being discovered after death. Burial is problematic though, because burying something is a great way to make a fossil, not prevent one. Cremation? I don't think there's a consensus that bigfoots use fire. Hiding by loved ones also presumes that individuals only die with their social network around to prepare the body. Bigfoots must die (and must have died) by getting swept downstream in floods, falling through crevasses on mountain passes, etc., and any number of other ways that could prevent loved ones from doing whatever they might do to hide the carcass from humans for perpetuity. So yes, we can share sound bytes or make analogies to suggest that we really shouldn't expect to find bigfoot fossils. To me, though, the lack of a fossil record is quite a pickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) The very first chimp fossils known to exist were found in the Summer of 2004. So, it doesn't really seem like the 'missing fossil record' is a big deal in terms of the existence of Bigfoot, whether you believe that they frequently dumpster dive or not. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html Edited October 18, 2011 by xspider1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) http://en.wikipedia....ki/Homo_erectus H. erectus was probably the first hominid to live in small, familiar band-societies similar to modern hunter-gatherer band-societies.[29] H. erectus/ergaster is thought to be the first hominid to hunt in coordinated groups, use complex tools, and care for infirm or weak companions. Anthopologists seem to largely agree that 2 million year old homo erectus species had a language, just as Scott Nelson surmises the same with Sasquatch. Therefore familial group living and some sort of looses knit society may also be implied. It's not by accident we we have such an absolute absence of evidence, it's the Sasquatch peoples themselves orchestrating that effort, be it thru burials and or cannibalism. Sasquatch are deliberately avoiding humans like the plague, and very successfully so, lest there be yet another "shooting" ... Edited October 18, 2011 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 http://en.wikipedia....ki/Homo_erectus Anthopologists seem to largely agree that 2 million year old homo erectus species had a language, just as Scott Nelson surmises the same with Sasquatch. Therefore familial group living and some sort of looses knit society may also be implied. It's not by accident we we have such an absolute absence of evidence, it's the Sasquatch peoples themselves orchestrating that effort, be it thru burials and or cannibalism. Sasquatch are deliberately avoiding humans like the plague, and very successfully so, lest there be yet another "shooting" ... There has been no "shooting" of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 After years of reading the BFF I still can't believe that the "no fossils" argument still gets tossed around. Surely Darwin had this nailed many years ago. For those who haven't read it, a chapter of "The Origin Of Species" is entitled "On The Imperfection Of The Geological Record". If I may quote the great man... "The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear". Fossils are lucky flukes - we should be thankful for what we find - just don't expect a stone encyclopedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 To me, though, the lack of a fossil record is quite a pickle. Gotta' love a gooooooooood pickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 There has been no "shooting" of one. There's been no "verified" shooting of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) There's been no "verified" shooting of one. There has been no bigfoot shooting or body part collected. Feel free to prove otherwise. *criokets* Camp fire stories equate to just that. Nice story though. Edited October 18, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 As Southern Yahoo said earlier about the potentially LARGE amount of Hominin bones fossils that have not been DNA tested (of course these were collected some time ago before that could be done) , the chance of overlooking a new species seems very possible and we have the bottomless pit of the Smithsonian that hopefully one day in my lifetime will test and share some of the findings from the past we wonder about. That's what my dad told me from the time that I was a young child that there are answers to many of life's mysteries lost or misidentified in the storage overflow of many major museums, such as London's Natural History History and the Smithsonian, not to mention the small museums around the country and world.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 There has been no bigfoot shooting or body part collected. Feel free to prove otherwise. *criokets* Camp fire stories equate to just that. Nice story though. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to prove. I used the word "verified" for a reason, to relieve me from the burden of proof. Whether or not the shooting actually took place has not been verified. To state otherwise, one way or the other, requires proof. Now, you may have some inside information I am not aware of. Do you have proof that there was no shooting or body part collected? Before, you ask I don't have proof that either one of those things happened. You're right. It is a great story. Whether or not it's true remains to be seen. Sorry, but the whole burden of proof thing is a pet peeve of mine. It's the second time I've commented on it today. My burden of proof post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 There has been no "shooting" of one. I hope you're right, but spouting opinions as verified facts have a propensity to come back to bite ya on the backside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Good one Sarah.. Sarah done really well to manage to use " Bellingham, WA " twice in the article, it shows that she's aware of " wild places ", clearly i guess.. Benjamin Radford should stick to investigating Witches, UFO's & the effects of watching Pokemon. One thing that is ironic about your above response is that there are thousands of verifiable pictures of UFOs versus a few of BF. Since I've personally encountered 2 UFOs in broad daylight I know that UFOs are real, and I still believe that BF is a real species even tho I've never actually seen one except in pictures I think I would prefer to not know that UFOs are real, They appear much more dangerous to us humans than a BF species does .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts