hominids [Archive] - JREF Forum

bruto

4th January 2009, 05:52 PM

Negative Grasshopper! You're in hard boilded anti hominid heaven here and the usual suspects are about to carve you up for sport. Run as fast as you can you've no friends here!Your'e not going to be his friend. Nasty you!

Seriously, I don't think it's a matter of likelihood. It's a matter of "has anyone come up with good evidence?" A body or some bones would be good. Who knows, if there really are such critters out there, eventually one will be squashed by an avalanche or a falling tree or something, and maybe someone will find it before it gets eaten.

I think it would be very cool if someone finally comes up with a really convincing bit of evidence for any crypto hominid. I just have yet to see it. I think you'll find that there are many skeptics who do not discount the possibility, only the likelihood.

My own uneducated guess is that if it does come, it will come from someone who is not connected with the current bigfoot community, and that it will be an embarrassment to many of them, because a true bigfoot, or other hominid, will show up the fakes.

makaya325

4th January 2009, 07:14 PM

even though i admit bf has a possibility, i can see why areas like the himalayas and tibet could hold both the yeren and yeti.

a good suggestion:

I would be one of those in the camp that says that remains will be virtually impossible to find and no conclusion should be drawn from that.

Chimpanzees have lived in Africa for 7 million years and it is estimated that there are approximately 1 million living there at least up until that past several decades. If the averge chimp lives 40 years then that means 175 billion chimps have romped around the Africa continent.

The first fossilized chimp remains weren't discovered until 2004.

So, the complete lack of BF bones and remains is utterly meaningless to me.

interesting note above, its not like anyones going out looking for bf, unless u count the woos of the bfro

Damien Evans

4th January 2009, 07:42 PM

As far as cryptids go I think these two are the most likely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_Gogo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek

Given the recent discoveries on Flores I wouldn't be too surprised if they were real.

kitakaze

4th January 2009, 07:44 PM

i realize most you guys are skeptical concerning the existence of bigfoot, but what about other hominids in more remote areas. hominids like the yeren and yeti, do any of you feel are more likely than squatch?

Negative Grasshopper! You're in hard boilded anti hominid heaven here and the usual suspects are about to carve you up for sport. Run as fast as you can you've no friends here!

Don't let log fill your head with beans. The question you ask is a good one and completely valid. Log is pretty bitter. She thinks this place is evil and we're all devourers of souls. She's mostly upset because she has a hard time fitting in with others due to her ideas about Bigfoot extinction. Anyway, nevermind that.

Yeah, when it comes to Bigfoot, the evidence is very much in line with a social phenomenom.

The one hominid that I would not be totally shocked to find living would be Homo Floresiensis, commonly referred to as the hobbits. With a recent survival in a heavily forested region, roughly 12,000 years, it is not inconceivable to suppose a small relict population still existing well hidden on some Indonesian island. There are the tales of Ebu Gogo which may or may not be related and sightings and other claims of the well known Orang Pendek. At least a couple of the sightings were made by western scientists who had sustained visuals. Whether they truly did see living hobbits or some relative remains to be seen and while quite unlikely, it's not anywhere near as unlikely as giant bipedal non-human primates running all over North America. National Geographic has put enough stock in the idea to run a 2 year full time search effort.

If you are interested in the hobbits and the idea of possible existence now then I would suggest the following thread:

Homo Floresiensis and Non-Linear Evolution (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128690)

kitakaze

4th January 2009, 07:46 PM

makaya325

4th January 2009, 07:47 PM

Crowlogic

4th January 2009, 07:52 PM

makaya325

4th January 2009, 07:58 PM

kitakaze

4th January 2009, 08:19 PM

thanks kit!

but people gotta understand, if its out there, its probably in the remote mountains, british columbia, or a remote part of canada. their are areas up there that are so remote you can go yrs without seeing sign of people,

besides, its not like anyone is looking, unless you count woos

Ah, but there's the problem, makaya. If we were getting limited but regular reports from say the Carmannah Valley or Gifford Pinchot National Forest, reports from rangers, loggers, hunters, etc that had consistent descriptions and not the big pile of garbage that footers pass around all over the place, you'd certainly start getting some wildlife officials and biologists interested.

Bigfootery shoots itself in the foot with the sincere sounding reports from all over the continent. Bigfooters don't seem to understand the remote fallacy. They tell us about areas of land untouched but this is not how Bigfoot is reported. Bigfoot is in my garbage, Bigfoot is stealing my beans, what the heck did Bigfoot do to my cat? That is standard fare.

A small population of shy primates living isolated in some valley is no big offence to common sense. That is never what Bigfoot was or is.

makaya325

4th January 2009, 08:22 PM

but what about the reports from remote bc or alberta? i think its good to dismiss most reports, and have skeptics realize only a fraction r true, and that they arent seen over the continent

kitakaze

4th January 2009, 08:29 PM

crow, thats true, but not for centuries, its been only recently that we have been looking, i wish someone would get to the bottom of this: its unfair to label all the tracks hoaxs, bc some of them arent easy to dismiss

That is another Bigfoot enthusiast promoted fallacy - we haven't really looked. We don't need to intentionally search for something to find it or have it find us. People have been living, working, researching, observing, tracking, hunting, etc in alleged Bigfoot territory with no reliable evidence of such a creature existing. We have elusive, large, very rare animals living in North America that we can still locate. Think of the ultra-rare white bears of the Queen Charlotte Islands as an example. There is no reconciliation we have to make with Bigfoot claims. Everything about it fits nicely with a social construct.

kitakaze

4th January 2009, 08:31 PM

but what about the reports from remote bc or alberta? i think its good to dismiss most reports, and have skeptics realize only a fraction r true, and that they arent seen over the continent

Tell me what process you go through to decide which to dismiss and which qualify as keepers. If you try, you will see yourself come to a very slippery slope.

makaya325

4th January 2009, 08:31 PM

well, take the tibetan blue bear. 1000's of them exist in the open himalayas and people have been looking for it all the time, and no one has a full carcass of it. only skin and pelts.

makaya325

4th January 2009, 08:33 PM

well its that skeptics say "how do we miss an animal in 50 states". most likely, if they exist, they arent in 50 states, but a few large, remote areas of washington, oregon, canada etc. but i know no one is going to prove either way on a forum! lol

kitakaze

4th January 2009, 08:53 PM

well, take the tibetan blue bear. 1000's of them exist in the open himalayas and people have been looking for it all the time, and no one has a full carcass of it. only skin and pelts.

1) We're talking about Bigfoot or yeti now?

2) Are you absolutely sure no one has shot and eaten a blue bear?

3) Skins and pelts are reliable evidence of blue bears.

4) Why no Bigfoot pelts?

5) I can show you an image of a known Tibetan blue bear:

http://www.ecotibet.org/gallery/photo/album/poster/slides/2%20Tibetan%20Bear.html

http://www.ojizoo.jp/zukan/pic/0107016.jpg

Damien Evans

4th January 2009, 10:00 PM

1) We're talking about Bigfoot or yeti now?

2) Are you absolutely sure no one has shot and eaten a blue bear?

3) Skins and pelts are reliable evidence of blue bears.

4) Why no Bigfoot pelts?

5) I can show you an image of a known Tibetan blue bear:

http://www.ecotibet.org/gallery/photo/album/poster/slides/2%20Tibetan%20Bear.html

http://www.ojizoo.jp/zukan/pic/0107016.jpg

It's not as blue as I hoped it would be.:(

I was hoping for something more flamboyant.

William Parcher

4th January 2009, 10:26 PM

It's not as blue as I hoped it would be.:(

I was hoping for something more flamboyant.

No, no, no. The bears are sad. They are perpetually sad.

Sideroxylon

4th January 2009, 11:03 PM

makaya325

5th January 2009, 01:11 PM

Crowlogic

5th January 2009, 03:16 PM

i know blue bears exist, but the point was that science has never found a full carcass of this animal, despite searching for decades in the himalayas.

do opinions hear differ for the yeti than bigfoot?

Kit thinks I'm bitter. But Kit thinks a lot of things that never pan out. So rather than you get the fatal questrion asked by one of the usual suspects I'll save them the trouble now. What sort of hard evidence do you have that the hominids you mention exist. Reports are not hard evidence, legends are not hard evidence. In the absence of hard evidence there is only opinion. I am of the opinion that the class of hominids in question have gone extinct. My negative view concerning the issue is far from that of the Footers. So the last bastion of the existence of Sasquatch rides in the PGF and the jury is still out on that one. But hey there's been better than 40 years for Patty and the last of her realitives to expire. The lads have been on good behavior with you, perhaps because nasty little me is circleing above but don't be fooled.

kitakaze

5th January 2009, 03:47 PM

i know blue bears exist, but the point was that science has never found a full carcass of this animal, despite searching for decades in the himalayas.

Who ever put it in your head that a Tibetan blue bear body has never been found? Someone told you that because you didn't read it from any factual source. I'm guessing Bigfoot forum, book, or Bigfoot enthusiast on TV. I don't know if you noticed it but I gave you a couple of pictures of Tibetan blue bear's in Japanese zoos.

Science has blue bears. They can study them, weigh them, measure them, put their heads up against their chests and listen to their hearts beating. Science can feed them, have their picture taken with them, and change their poopies.

kitakaze

5th January 2009, 03:54 PM

The lads have been on good behavior with you, perhaps because nasty little me is circleing above but don't be fooled.

You flatter yourself. It probably has something to do with not whining about what a bad place this is and logging in everday.;)

Madalch

5th January 2009, 04:07 PM

but what about the reports from remote bc or alberta? i think its good to dismiss most reports, and have skeptics realize only a fraction r true, and that they arent seen over the continent

Can you give me a cite for the reports from remote B.C. or Alberta? I don't generally keep up with Bigfoot, but as an Albertan in B.C., I like to keep an eye on my neck of the woods.

Crowlogic

5th January 2009, 04:14 PM

You flatter yourself. It probably has something to do with not whining about what a bad place this is and logging in everday.;)

No more so then you Sweetness!

makaya325

5th January 2009, 04:52 PM

kitakaze

5th January 2009, 05:26 PM

well ,generally, reports come from canada, so look it up?'

kitz, we have only 1 blue bear. yet science has not found another one dead or alive after countless expeditions to the himalayas. considering the fact most people, proponents and skeptics, are armchaired, no wonder why we dont find anything.

look im not trying to start anything, just stating my opinion

I don't think you're starting anything, we're just coming to an understanding. I don't know where you're getting the idea that there is only one Tibetan blue bear we can observe. I showed you three separate bears, two in captivity. I don't know about these countless failed attempts to go recover one either. They're rare. Extremely, extremely rare. It doesn't mean we're at a loss to explain Tibetan blue bears.

Oh no, you brought out the armchair bit. Please, please, please, Mayaka, try to think about this realistically. You are at a computer now and so am I. That doesn't mean anything. People are out there every day in Bigfoot land doing all manner of things without a single shred of reliable evidence of that supposed giant mammal that has to live, eat, find others, hump, sleep, poop, and die.

Let me see if we can walk through this rationally. You think Bigfoot is in BC and Alberta. Where in either of those provinces do you think Bigfoot is living and breeding and why?

BTW, I don't think the first sentence in your post there was directed to me. You may not know how to use the quote function here. If there is a post you wish to respond to then at the lower right of that post you will see a set of options including quote. If you use that, it will be much easier for us to know who you are speaking to.

makaya325

5th January 2009, 05:36 PM

kit, people are out there going on with their lives, and some are reporting to see large gorilla like animals. bc is the homeland of squatch, regardless of its existence or not. if you go to look at reports, you can see that most are from washington, oregon, upper cali, all of those areas are considered remote by modern society. i think people in other states are trying to copy off of the real sightings in the main bf territories for attention. gorillas give birth every 7 years, so its not like a primate would give birth everyday. whether you believe it or not, there have been sightings of these things mating, and before you throw out the woos, remember that lions are known to participate in "orgies" with one another

people are out in biff land, but are they spending every second looking for bigfoot? nope. i know what you mean by finding things on accident, but its better to look for things rather than just wander around expecting to find a bone of an incredibly rare animal. did you ever find wolverine bones while hiking or camping?

Crowlogic

5th January 2009, 08:19 PM

people are out in biff land, but are they spending every second looking for bigfoot? nope. i know what you mean by finding things on accident, but its better to look for things rather than just wander around expecting to find a bone of an incredibly rare animal. did you ever find wolverine bones while hiking or camping?

And yet some people are out there and or have been out there. I spen the better part of 2 years in the Adirondacks in some very remote areas doing environmental research. Had endless hours in the forest day and night day in and day out and got to know the region very, very well. During my time in the field I was not of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mindset but I'm certain that if there was something to be encountered in the region I would have encountered it. I'll tell anyone flat out no don't waste your time there looking for Bigfoot. And lets not forget that there are dozens of occupations and pastimes that put people out into the suspected habitat of Sasquatch. There are eyes out there and is the intentional sighting any less proable simply because the intent of the sightee may be focused in other things.

If the numbers are low enough an animal can stay below the radar. However what is that number? 100, 200, 600? And what of the range? The reputed range is large and the proported sightings frequent enough to impy numbers of significance perhaps in the thousands. Numbers that potentially large over a range so reportedly large fairly screams that there has to be at least one unlucky Sasquatch that stepped in front of the wrong logging truck or got in the sight of one too many trigger happy hunter or just plaing died and was found by a lumber crew where if fell. This doesn't happen, ever anywhere. Of course we don't run across T-Rex tearing up the barnyard but we know why. Rex is long gone, he was but he ain't no more. I don't find it unreasonable to assume that Sasquatch could have lurked when this country was populated by the FNP. Its not unreasonable to assume that Sasquatch could have lurked in the days when settlement by whites was sparse and wholesale deforestation and putting to plow and home haden't eaten up so much of the place. But we're everywhere, we go everywhere, we're loaded from head to toe with imaging capture devices and yet our devices while capturing hordes of images of countless things fail to capture Sasquatch. So while Roger Patterson and his film are in my good graces I'll say the following. Had you gotten into Northern CA before 1972 you may have caught a glimpse of Pattys fading linage. Perhaps there was a group of about 20 in 1967. Even a modest attrition rate would have put paid to it by 1972.

makaya325

5th January 2009, 08:28 PM

Crow, i believe even with cameras, we arent focusing on looking for such a thing, so no one should complain about the lack of photos. Yet when videos are taken-theyre dismissed?\

Crow, lets cut the sightings in half or even quarters, and the population size shrinks dramatically. If bf was in every state, it would have been found by now. but if its in 1 or 2 states, probably not

Correa Neto

5th January 2009, 09:05 PM

Crowlogic

5th January 2009, 09:32 PM

I would go for a small creature, about the size of an orang-utang or an australopithecine (1.5m tall) at Southern Asia or Africa as the most plausible one, given the existence of fossil record and ape species. At that part of the world, I would guess the legends may reflect the memories of some extinct species.

Makaya325, you are greatly underestimating the number of people who do field works at bigfoot country and the time they stay in the field. Every singe one of these individuals is a candidate to get reliable evidence if bigfeet are real.

Wow here I am quoting in agreement with a sometimes nemisis. However Correa is correct. When I was doing field work I developed an amazingly sharp eye for all kinds of details within my environment, sights, sounds and smells. Although I was in the field to collect water samples and record visual health of lakes, ponds and rivers the secondary requirments were of the general health of the environment as a whole. Had I been there to monitor deer behavior I could have done so since I encountered them so often and in such numbers that got to know them whether I was there to study them or not. And so it was with a lot of the fauna. I don't get outinto the woods nearly as often as I'd like to now but when I do it only takes about an hour or two for the observation reflex to kick in.

Biscuit

5th January 2009, 11:40 PM

whether you believe it or not, there have been sightings of these things mating, and before you throw out the woos, remember that lions are known to participate in "orgies" with one another

What on earth do those two things have in common other than they both make me giggle?

Even if there are small populations of bigfoot around it will take an actual body in order to convince most people. This is due to the large amount of purported evidence has been shown to be fake. Bigfoot researchers and their evidence is to be viewed with a very healthy dose of skepticism. Even if there are honest BF researchers out there it appears there are many more scam artists.

As for what may exist I would have to go with a small hominid as was mentioned earlier but I doubt it.

Ashles

6th January 2009, 07:25 AM

More people are out looking or at least on the lookout for Bigfoot than you might imagine.
If it's more than 2 then I would be shocked. And saddened.

Ashles

6th January 2009, 07:28 AM

Did I really read in one of the above posts that, essentially, Bigfoot must exist because lions have orgies?

Did I read that?

I think I know how it feels to go insane.

Cainkane1

6th January 2009, 07:43 AM

I don't believe in them ether. I doubt if a new large primate will ever be found anywhere.

Crowlogic

6th January 2009, 10:12 AM

If it's more than 2 then I would be shocked. And saddened.

Then be prepared to be shocked and saddened.

Skeptic Guy

6th January 2009, 10:50 AM

Did I really read in one of the above posts that, essentially, Bigfoot must exist because lions have orgies?

Did I read that?

I think I know how it feels to go insane.

Well then, I, for one, welcome our Big Foot overlords!

Seriously though, as has been pointed out on another thread, the Pacific Northwest is not devoid of people, observers, scientists, etc. If there was something to find, it would have been found by now. We are not in the Himalayas.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 12:58 PM

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 01:39 PM

The pacific northwest has its wildlife studies and surveys, but so do the Himalayas. Take Snelgrove for example: why are there no articles concerning wildlife studies taking place there? Sure, some alleged bigfoot sightings occur near man, but what about the ones that occur very very far from civilization?

Do you guys think its reasonable to discover, lets say a new rodent, in Africa?

You seem sure that no one has ever studied wildlife at Snelgrove Lake (location of the two MonsterQuest Sasquatch Attacks! episodes) and written about it.

And is there some compelling reason why more scientists should come swooping down on Snelgrove? Surely it's not a bleached human hair (MQ creator Doug Hajicek) and a rock on a roof?

BTW, Mayaka, I have to ask. What's with this?:

roller, why does the jref consider the bff to be woo? it pisses me off when we cant get along

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24601&view=findpost&p=510234

sasskeptic, does the jref and the bff have a sort of grudge going on?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24601&view=findpost&p=510252

I mean, you've already been told entertaining BF existence does not equate woo. You've been given people to refer to at that Bigfoot forum and topics to check out. I'm having some trouble understanding your thought process.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 02:29 PM

Im sorry, Kit. When im interested in something, Im all over the place. I just like being part of both forums and experiencing the different view points.

Before i registered here, i viewed the posts here and they mention woo alot that is targeted at people, which some i feel are being mocked unfairly.

Kitz, i agree that mq was for comic relief. But it shows that you dont have to follow the scientific method to find evidence, only that the SM is much easier. I have personally called Meldrum on my free time and asked him about the hair. He believes that Nelson shouldnt have jumped the gun, and that 388 base pairs will not prove anything.

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 02:55 PM

Im sorry, Kit. When im interested in something, Im all over the place. I just like being part of both forums and experiencing the different view points.

That's an admirable thing and good for you. I personally don't participate in discussions at places such as BFF because I find there to be far too many people who get emotionally invested in the subject and have a hard time being rational. There's also the fact that in the interest of being a community of believers in Bigfoot, things such as religion and politics are out of bound. As I said, there's smart people there who I mentioned to you.

Keep in mind that there is no feud between the BFF and the JREF. The BFF is a forum for Bigfoot enthusiasts where as the JREF is a massive site devoted to skepticism and critical thinking in general with a dizzying range of things discussed. Accept for a few skeptics here and people who were members there before coming here, the BFF does not provoke even the slightest blip on the average member's radar. I could go to the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section here and ask someone if they've been to the BFF. They would sooner think I was talking about a gay porn site or Indian movie forum than something to do with Bigfoot.

Kitz, i agree that mq was for comic relief. But it shows that you dont have to follow the scientific method to find evidence, only that the SM is much easier. I have personally called Meldrum on my free time and asked him about the hair. He believes that Nelson shouldnt have jumped the gun, and that 388 base pairs will not prove anything.

Then why do you imply that science is wrongfully ignoring Snelgrove Lake?

Also, those MonsterQuest episodes were not intended by producer Doug Hajicek as comic relief. It was considered by those involved to be a serious scientic endevour. Why don't you?

Mojo

6th January 2009, 03:08 PM

Chimpanzees have lived in Africa for 7 million years and it is estimated that there are approximately 1 million living there at least up until that past several decades. If the averge chimp lives 40 years then that means 175 billion chimps have romped around the Africa continent.

The first fossilized chimp remains weren't discovered until 2004.

So, the complete lack of BF bones and remains is utterly meaningless to me.

However, non-fossilized chimp remains, and actual live chimps, were known well before that.

Preservation by fossilization is a comparatively rare event, so for living species it is vastly more likely that fresh remains or living examples will be found.

Anyway, the topic here is not fossil non-human hominids (it's pretty well established that those existed), it's living non-human hominids.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 03:34 PM

Mojo, that is correct. However, Me and other hunters and backpackers i know tell me that finding any animal carcass is a rare event. Im no push over when it comes to scouring the area. I keep a sharp eye on everything that comes my way, and the fact that i havent even found a dead bear in the last seven years is baffling for me

makaya325

6th January 2009, 03:36 PM

Take the mountain Gorilla for example. These animals are living in the 100's in areas that are very very close to the wars going on, and gorilla carcasses are found not often, but rarely. Even though they are found, why is it that even though humans are close, why dont we have tons of their bodies by now?

Nursefoxfire

6th January 2009, 03:54 PM

Accept for a few skeptics here and people who were members there before coming here, the BFF does not provoke even the slightest blip on the average member's radar. I could go to the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section here and ask someone if they've been to the BFF.

I thought BFF meant 'Best Friends Forever'. I must be reading the wrong forums! :D

William Parcher

6th January 2009, 04:06 PM

makaya325

6th January 2009, 04:26 PM

tyr_13

6th January 2009, 04:32 PM

Not hearing about it might have something to do with the war going on right near them. That makes it hard for wildlife experts to continue their studies and preoccupies everyone else. For all we know they find them all the time but who is going to talk about that when crude machete are being used to hack babies to death?

Soapy Sam

6th January 2009, 04:35 PM

In countries where human life is cheap, non-human death rarely makes the papers.
If there are papers.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 04:38 PM

Yet, soapy, not everything makes the papers here.

think of finding teeth of bf. Thats like me looking for a tiny tiny insignificant dot in a forest filled with brush

William Parcher

6th January 2009, 04:42 PM

Parcher, why arent gorillas found more often, due to the fact that despite endangered, they live in groups in the 100's close to human civilization, and there is a war going on right near them, yet you rarely hear of a dead gorilla being found.

How many were found dead in the past 30 days? DO NOT MAKE UP A NUMBER. Give a number (even if zero) and a reference to back up the source of that number. If your answer is zero, give a reference supporting that number.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 04:56 PM

William Parcher

6th January 2009, 04:58 PM

Before i registered here, i viewed the posts here and they mention woo alot that is targeted at people, which some i feel are being mocked unfairly.

I seriously doubt that you will cause yourself to be logically and righteously defined as a woo. There remains the possibility that your own behavior would be properly defined as troll. If this is offensive or distasteful to you - then you should independently research and understand what it means to be a troll and prevent yourself from being or becoming that. It is highly beneficial to not ask what a troll is and instead do your own independent research. Asking what is a troll, or if you are considered to be a troll, is a strong indication that you are that thing.

Know that a troll is often held in lower regard than a woo, and most importantly do not ask me any questions about this.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 05:02 PM

William, It seems to me that most of you guys think scientifically. But scientific discoveries dont always have to be scientific. Was the find of the megamouth shark scientific? Can people approach bigfoot in a non-scientific way and still find evidence? of course.

William Parcher

6th January 2009, 05:07 PM

http://critternews.blogspot.com/2008/11/five-baby-mountain-gorillas-found-at.html

That was the last one found, and that was a week longer than a month ago. so it stands at zero carcasses found in the last 30 days for a couple 100 400 pound beasts living in close proximity to man

I asked for 30 days but I will let you slide once. Now... show me a report that states that EVERY POSSIBLE PERSON who could have encountered a carcass, did not encounter a carcass, in the past 30 days.

Mojo

6th January 2009, 05:09 PM

Can people approach bigfoot in a non-scientific way and still find evidence? of course.

Have they found any?

bruto

6th January 2009, 05:09 PM

Parcher, why arent gorillas found more often, due to the fact that despite endangered, they live in groups in the 100's close to human civilization, and there is a war going on right near them, yet you rarely hear of a dead gorilla being found.Perhaps one reason, rather well publicized recently, is that they're being illegally hunted and eaten.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 05:12 PM

Mojo, since people have attempted (more like half arse) to look, which exists in the case of bogus monsterquest. Evidence has been found, but of what? The evidence found indicates something of large proportions is causing tracks to be found and hairs to be examined

makaya325

6th January 2009, 05:13 PM

Bruto, wouldnt eating that kill you? Im just pulling this one out: If africans eat gorillas, why is it unreasonable for natives to be eating bigfoot?

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 05:47 PM

Bandersnatch

6th January 2009, 05:48 PM

I seriously doubt that you will cause yourself to be logically and righteously defined as a woo. There remains the possibility that your own behavior would be properly defined as troll.

In a cuh-razy coincidence, someone with the same name and preoccupation with bear carcasses was suspended from unexplained-mysteries recently. If you want to see a 41 page thread on it (with bear carcass images, even!) try here. (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=138310)

Really good research in the first post.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 05:59 PM

Bander, thanks for bringing that up.

Yes, i admit, i got heated over there because of only one guy. I got along with skeptics there, but I couldnt stand this one and me and him kind of duked it out

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 06:00 PM

In a cuh-razy coincidence, someone with the same name and preoccupation with bear carcasses was suspended from unexplained-mysteries recently. If you want to see a 41 page thread on it (with bear carcass images, even!) try here. (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=138310)

Really good research in the first post.

If they lifted my dead bear images from here, I'm going to get shpilkes in my geneckteckessoink.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:00 PM

It was over on the bff. Before you say "thats bs" think about it, we know chimps live around that long and the number seems reasonable

Yes bander, my favorite animal is the bear

Bandersnatch

6th January 2009, 06:03 PM

I understand that, but many of the questions you asked there seem to be of the same viraty you're asking here, did you feel your questions weren't fully answered?

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 06:04 PM

It was over on the bff.

So you are relying on a Bigfoot enthusiast forum for your facts as I thought. This is why you drop so many footerisms.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:06 PM

No, Bander, they werent. One of the debunkers called my tribe "definitely mistaken in their stories", which is ok when you can provide evidence, but he failed to. He also said the pgf was a hoax because bigfoot doesnt exist. Look, i can understand if you claim its a hoax, but dont base it on bigfoot in general, base it on the film itself.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:07 PM

Kita, I would find it cool if a member of the jref and a member of the bff duke it out..debate style that is:cool:

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:09 PM

Kitz, can you please stop with the factoids and labeling things you dont believe footerisms? I would get mad if they mislabeled something on the jref they didnt understand. You agree that its disrespectful when true-believers called some skeptics "skeptoids""?

Bandersnatch

6th January 2009, 06:10 PM

but dont base it on bigfoot in general, base it on the film itself.

It's kind of ipso facto...

tyr_13

6th January 2009, 06:11 PM

Skeptoid is a pod-cast. http://skeptoid.com/

Bandersnatch

6th January 2009, 06:12 PM

Reptoids don't seem to mind it...

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:13 PM

What does that mean?

Bandersnatch

6th January 2009, 06:19 PM

That I spend to much time on paranormal forums.

EDIT:
FYI: Reptoids! (http://www.reptoids.com/)

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 06:22 PM

Kita, I would find it cool if a member of the jref and a member of the bff duke it out..debate style that is:cool:

It happens all the time. There's a number of BFF people who've come over here and tried to duke it out. It usually ends with the BFF person walking out in huff after throwing some insults around or going quiet after repeated requests for the evidence of their claims they know they do not have.

The better ones will try to keep their facts straight when they come here to Thunderdome because they know they'll get chewed up like kibblez n' bitz if they don't. What they don't do is something like this:

Chimpanzees have lived in Africa for 7 million years and it is estimated that there are approximately 1 million living there at least up until that past several decades. If the averge chimp lives 40 years then that means 175 billion chimps have romped around the Africa continent.

The first fossilized chimp remains weren't discovered until 2004.

So, the complete lack of BF bones and remains is utterly meaningless to me.

even though i admit bf has a possibility, i can see why areas like the himalayas and tibet could hold both the yeren and yeti.

a good suggestion:

I would be one of those in the camp that says that remains will be virtually impossible to find and no conclusion should be drawn from that.

Chimpanzees have lived in Africa for 7 million years and it is estimated that there are approximately 1 million living there at least up until that past several decades. If the averge chimp lives 40 years then that means 175 billion chimps have romped around the Africa continent.

The first fossilized chimp remains weren't discovered until 2004.

So, the complete lack of BF bones and remains is utterly meaningless to me.

interesting note above, its not like anyones going out looking for bf, unless u count the woos of the bfro

They usually know if they try cut and paste someone else's argument as their own they will end up looking like a hack and look silly in front of the big boys.

That's Thunderdome, though.

bruto

6th January 2009, 06:26 PM

Bruto, wouldnt eating that kill you? Im just pulling this one out: If africans eat gorillas, why is it unreasonable for natives to be eating bigfoot? I'm not sure I get your point. My point is that we're probably not seeing as many gorilla bodies as there are gorillas dying, because they're being hunted and eaten and those doing the illegal hunting are not presenting the bodies to investigators for obvious reasons. On the other hand there's plenty of physical evidence both of the gorillas and the hunting, so maybe my point wasn't a very good one either. Come to think of it, it probably is the reverse of my original point, because a little research suggests that gorilla remains are, in fact, pretty easy to come by.

You can find out more about the hunting of gorillas and chimpanzees by googling for "bushmeat." It's a serious conservation issue.

I'm not sure how that relates to the question of natives eating bigfoot, except that given mankind's propensity for hunting, killing and eating just about anything else that moves, we must wonder why there is so little evidence of bigfoot hunting, no bigfoot bones in middens, no bigfoot parts on necklaces, no bigfoot fur robes, and so forth. You can come up with any number of surmises why that is not the case, but of course the easiest if not the most interesting is the possibility that there never have been any bigfeet available to hunt because they don't. alas, exist.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:26 PM

I wasnt looking for a fight, Kit, I just copied and pasted it to let you know. I have no idea if its true, i just thought that you should read it.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:29 PM

Bruto, do you see any bear teeth on necklaces? Why would someone put a part of something that is human shaped? I would assume that they would mistake it for a man. Some indian reservations are off limits to most people, so who knows what others never share. Im sure if you ask one of us we will gladly show you the path

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 06:30 PM

That I spend to much time on paranormal forums.

EDIT:
FYI: Reptoids! (http://www.reptoids.com/)

I love that site. It's a very important resource for my alien/Bigfoot paradigm:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4232217#post4232217

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 06:43 PM

I wasnt looking for a fight, Kit, I just copied and pasted it to let you know. I have no idea if its true, i just thought that you should read it.

That's alright, makaya. I don't really see a fight here. It's a simple point - Bigfoot enthusiasts are usually pretty terrible when it comes to dealing with information and getting facts straight. They circulate made up gobbledygook amongst themselves, nodding to eachother, and don't have the slightest inclination to question what they're regurgitating to eachother.

When you not only repeat someone else but cut and paste their words as your own, it shows what many others and myself would consider total intellectual lethargy. No, you didn't have any idea if it was true but you put it out there as if it was a true, a fact that you researched and came up with yourself. That is completely against the concept of critical thinking and it's pretty lame. You should just keep in mind for the future that when you do something like that you work against the goal you are trying to achieve.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:47 PM

tyr_13

6th January 2009, 06:48 PM

Have they found any?

Seconded

makaya325

6th January 2009, 06:57 PM

Yes, Mojo, but of what? Evidence of something large leaving the impressions?

what do you think of this scat

http://www.rense.com/general52/sas.htm

http://www.bluenorth.com/NightScream2003Article/Memorial%20Day%202003%20Expedition.htm

check out the scat on both links

tyr_13

6th January 2009, 07:05 PM

???

That's supposed to be unknown scat?

makaya325

6th January 2009, 07:06 PM

I have no idea what it belongs to, I Just put up the links to see if any of you knew what it belonged to

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 07:06 PM

Thanks, Kit. I want this mystery solved like you too. I feel we will have an answer to its existence if we scan every known hominid hotspot in the world to the nearest inch or we find a body.

Yet you now change tack and have adopted log's stance of extinction. What is it you propose? How do you satisfy yourself that Bigfoot etc is not out there? How do you prove that negative to all the Bigfoot enthusiasts who cling to the dream?

Do you have any favorite stories from Native american lore?

All the research I've done for the Bigfoot and Native American myths/traditions thread has shown me some very cool tales. There's one that pops to mind and I'll repost it in that thread.

tyr_13

6th January 2009, 07:08 PM

One is compressed horse crap, and the other is bear. The bear on the left had eaten some different stuff from the one on the right.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 07:10 PM

Kitz, you can prove it doesnt exist, by exploring under every leaf, through every brush, through every single piece of land in the world, and if we come up empty handed, it proves it doesnt exist. I would be discouraged if it doesnt exist, but i will always remember the good old days of early man and his hairy friends

makaya325

6th January 2009, 07:12 PM

Tyrie, I really dont think its horse crap. Im pretty sure horse poo is easy to identify.

Correa Neto

6th January 2009, 07:29 PM

Wow here I am quoting in agreement with a sometimes nemisis. However Correa is correct. When I was doing field work I developed an amazingly sharp eye for all kinds of details within my environment, sights, sounds and smells. Although I was in the field to collect water samples and record visual health of lakes, ponds and rivers the secondary requirments were of the general health of the environment as a whole. Had I been there to monitor deer behavior I could have done so since I encountered them so often and in such numbers that got to know them whether I was there to study them or not. And so it was with a lot of the fauna. I don't get outinto the woods nearly as often as I'd like to now but when I do it only takes about an hour or two for the observation reflex to kick in.
OK, this is OT and quite possibly shoul be the subject of a PM, but I guess some people would benefit of it also.
Crow, I have no idea why you say I`m a Nemesis... Can`t remember waging vengeange or being hostile towards you. I do have a number different opinions than yours and state them, but please note that this is a debate forum and that defending a different position is not equal to hostility. Debates may be seen like verbal wars but this does not mean that hostility always happens.

And we agreeing is not actually something that rare.

tyr_13

6th January 2009, 07:40 PM

Tyrie, I really dont think its horse crap. Im pretty sure horse poo is easy to identify.

It is, and I've shoveled enough of it for my garden over the years to know what it looks like when you press it down and mix it with a little soil and roots. That's how I know it's horse droppings.

kitakaze

6th January 2009, 07:48 PM

arthwollipot

6th January 2009, 07:57 PM

Skeptoid is a pod-cast. http://skeptoid.com/And in a recent interview on the Skeptic Zone (http://www.skepticzone.tv/) podcast, Brian suggests that the name was applied to him in a derogatory manner before he adopted it for his show.

makaya325

6th January 2009, 08:04 PM

Lol kitz, i dont know, To either shut up the skeptics or the believers

Bandersnatch

6th January 2009, 08:32 PM

LTC8K6

6th January 2009, 09:57 PM

Makaya, what experts examined the scat(s) and were unable to identify them?

Why in the one example do we have pics of the scat, but not of the very deep tracks mentioned?

Miss_Kitt

6th January 2009, 11:19 PM

That is another Bigfoot enthusiast promoted fallacy - we haven't really looked. We don't need to intentionally search for something to find it or have it find us. People have been living, working, researching, observing, tracking, hunting, etc in alleged Bigfoot territory with no reliable evidence of such a creature existing. We have elusive, large, very rare animals living in North America that we can still locate. Think of the ultra-rare white bears of the Queen Charlotte Islands as an example. There is no reconciliation we have to make with Bigfoot claims. Everything about it fits nicely with a social construct.

That's totally awesome!! I've never heard of the White Bears, and I live relatively near them! That is so so so cool...and proof that there are amazing things in the world that do not require only mythology to support them.

I agree with your point, that if Bigfoot exists, we should have had more sightings by more credible folks, by now. We should have trailsign and dung. We should have indications that they use resources other animals would otherwise consume; that is, in a Bigfoot-occupied area, you should see a discrepancy in the populations of bears, wolverines, or whatever the proposed analog is. You should find indication of their feeding, be it broken branches, remains of prey, etc. We find lots of fossil sites for early humans with copious middens (trash heaps) with bones, broken tools, ash, etc.

I'm guessing the OP is fairly young, and doesn't know how many serious scientific studies of Bigfoot (Sasquatch is my preferred term, but then I'm in the Northwest) were conducted in the 70's and 80's, with no positive results. The existance of a BF-believer community that eagerly lauds likely frauds without demanding scientific examination of the evidence has if anything lessened the likelihood of serious researchers getting funding.

I also have to wonder when the BF myth expanded to include places like Georgia? Because the barriers to a creature being adapted to all the terrain between here and there are quite striking. I admit, I'm well out of the loop now, having taken a run at the Sasquatch evidence with the hope of believing in the late 70's and given up by '85.

The expansion to include other areas seems to be a better fit to the folkloric model. The only large animal I can think of that has succeeded as a predator from BC to Florida is the cougar, and even that has subspecies. (And, rare as they are, they're spotted regularly!)

Just my thoughts, MK

JcR

7th January 2009, 01:07 AM

These White Bears occasionally appear in the litters of the black
bear that inhabit these pockets of B.C. The Queen Charlotte islands.
Some have an orange tinge to them I hear.
I lived on Gabriola Island, never had the chance to go visit more
of these places in B.C.

makaya325

7th January 2009, 08:41 PM

MK, havent some animals died of mysterious causes? Deer with their heads snapped rambo style. Im not claiming anything though. Mk, im sure that plenty of other people have poked holes in the last post you made.

makaya325

7th January 2009, 08:42 PM

MK, my guess is 1 or 2 in the 70's, but please tell me how many?

RayG

7th January 2009, 09:33 PM

...whether you believe it or not, there have been sightings of these things mating, and before you throw out the woos, remember that lions are known to participate in "orgies" with one another

Henner, that you?

RayG

kitakaze

7th January 2009, 09:53 PM

Actually, from what he's written on the BFF, he is a friend of Henner.

godless dave

7th January 2009, 10:14 PM

LTC8K6

8th January 2009, 01:14 AM

MK, havent some animals died of mysterious causes? Deer with their heads snapped rambo style.

How would anyone know? We don't find animal bodies in the woods, right?

makaya325

8th January 2009, 01:09 PM

Lt, of course we find bodies in the woods, but its at the rate and quantity of how many bodies we find and how quick it takes to find them.

makaya325

8th January 2009, 01:10 PM

Godless, most mythical creatures likely have a basis in reality. What makes a horse with a mutation of some kind incredible?

Crowlogic

8th January 2009, 03:29 PM

Biscuit

8th January 2009, 08:51 PM

I have a cabin in the eastern part of the white mountains in AZ, there are even bigfoot reports from this part of the country. The hikes I go on with my dogs up there are never more than a few hours but we find animal carcasses.

We have found deer, raccoons, birds, ect. We do not stick to trails and the dogs find most of the remains but the idea that animal bodies are unheard of is a little silly. Most are completely decomposed and some I don't even see, the dogs just come running back with a cow bone every now and then.

If there was a breeding population of bigfoot in north america with a range from the NE to the SW I would think a body would have been located or at least a bone or two. Unless they buried their dead but I think that would imply that bigfoot had a religion... thats a whole new can of worms.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 02:23 PM

Biscuit, but there are people who have never found a dead cougar in their years and years of hunting. I have never found a dead bear, and only one deer skull, which felt like a once in a lifetime find. Burying their dead beneath boulders would be a great way to avoid being found. There are 1000's of murderers living in crowded areas that arent found

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 02:28 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896148d4fca4e3268.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13869)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896148d5a8c1b337d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13876)

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 02:32 PM

Most does not equate to all mythical creatures as having a basis in fact. Most mythical creatures are idiotic in their configurations. However it is the realitively non outlandish nature of Sasquatch that give is its appeal. Now if it had 3 eyes horns bat wings and hoofs and hands then toss the myth in the circular file. Too bad they went extinct.

Infrasound

Glowing (not reflecting) eyes

Telepathy

Spoken language

14 ft tall

Pilots UFOs

Lives across NA with no type specimen

...not outlandish?

Old man

9th January 2009, 02:45 PM

..and only one deer skull, which felt like a once in a lifetime find... You must not get out in woods much. :confused: I find a couple a year, if I bother to look. Do you live on, like, some little South Pacific atoll, or something? :)

makaya325

9th January 2009, 02:57 PM

makaya325

9th January 2009, 03:00 PM

Kitz, you cherry pick those traits from the minority of the nuts who think bigfoot is an alien.

Not 14ft tall. Eye shine is common in most animals. No cases of piloting ufo's. Who ever said its all across NA, why cant it be in just one area, and then the fake reports spread into other states?

Sources for the traits you gave it please

makaya325

9th January 2009, 03:01 PM

Old man, you find only a couple a year, despite the fact that their are over 93 million deer in the us?

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 03:11 PM

Kitz, you cherry pick those traits from the minority of the nuts who think bigfoot is an alien.

Think about this really hard before you answer me, mayaka. How do you know they're nut?

Not 14ft tall.

Lots of reports. What arbiter of validity are you?

Eye shine is common in most animals.

Mnay reports specifically mention glowing that couldn't be eyeshine.

No cases of piloting ufo's.

Wrong. There are reports of BF seen boarding UFO's.

Who ever said its all across NA, why cant it be in just one area, and then the fake reports spread into other states?

The witnesses.

Sources for the traits you gave it please

Most footers know these reports are out there. You want me to catch you up? Sure. Quid pro quo. Give me a BF CDN/PNW report that fits your criteria and that picture if you can and I'll do more than give you a database link.

ETA: Pic posted in NA thread. Thanks, the report would be great.

Old man

9th January 2009, 03:15 PM

No old man. I lived in california, then pennsylvania, and long island. Im only 18, but my father has took me hiking and backpacking off trails since i was 9. We covered alot of range, and never found anything besides a deer skull, unless you think a dead raccoon is something amazing to find.

I do not why people called me a liar when i said i dont find animal remains that often. Maybe im just unlucky
No offense, man. I kinda figured you just lacked time in the woods.

I once found a deer carcass in the woods by smell. :eek:

My performance amazed the friend who was with me. :cool:

makaya325

9th January 2009, 03:16 PM

Its ok OLD. I know tons of people who find bodies, and alot of people who dont.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 03:18 PM

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/report_detail.php?id=01412

Old man

9th January 2009, 03:34 PM

Old man, you find only a couple a year, despite the fact that their are over 93 million deer in the us? Well, I was assuming that the ten or so that my friends and I shoot every year don't count, or the scores I see dead by the side of the road. The fact is, in my part of the country, darned few deer die of causes other than the above. NYS hunters kill close to a quarter of the deer herd annually, and cars take more than that. Not many die 'in the woods'.

Almost all of my time 'in the woods' (in the past ten years or so) is spent on one 85 acre parcel. It ends up being a pretty small amount of time, and much of that time is spent 'working' (cutting firewood, mowing trails).

But, yea, I could probably go out (once the snow's gone) and find a deer carcass within a few days.

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 03:55 PM

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/report_detail.php?id=01412

With only having looked at the date before I read it, do you actually expect anyone to continue believing you're in log's extinct Bigfoot camp?

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 04:12 PM

OK, here's a report that passes mayaka's criteria:

Date: june08, 2005
Humboldt county, CA

Nearest town: Eureka
Nearest road: this was 5 mile back in the woods
Conditions: clear and warm
Time: late afternoon
Location: I was camping after my sister's funeral, to clear my head and to get back on track with my life.

Description of event: A friend of mine suggested a 2 week camping trip. We hiked 5 miles back into the woods, are astarting was my friends parents house at the outskirts Eureka. After the 4th night we started to hear noise coming from the tree line... this happen 3 nights running, then stopped for several days. Then about the 10th day we started to have a weird feeling that we were being watched, so we decided we take turns watching the aera. My friend took the first. Around 5:30 my friend called me over to take a look through the binoculars to get my opinion of animal he had sighted, so I took a long look at it, and told him that it might be a bigfoot by the way it was walking up the ridge on two legs. My friend was doubtful at first. He changed his mind when he ran into it later while using the facilities.

Wow, I was really expecting more. So what exactly about this report makes it pass your criteria? It's location? Two alleged witnesses?

OK, my turn. Here's one of our resident Bigfoot enthusiast's favourite reports from Valatie, New York (you're living in NY state, right?):

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5245

How's that fit with your criteria?

William Parcher

9th January 2009, 04:16 PM

we started to have a weird feeling that we were being watched

Why is it that when people say this kind of thing the watcher never turns out to be a cricket or chipmunk?

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 04:24 PM

Why is it that when people say this kind of thing the watcher never turns out to be a cricket or chipmunk?

It was an ominious feeling. I knew somethiing was watching me. And I could feel its... hungry eyes. (http://gallery.flyertalk.com/gallery/albums/Canadian-Rockies/Chipmunk_Cheeks_sharp.sized.jpg)

makaya325

9th January 2009, 05:37 PM

Kitz, that was a report i found cool, im unsure of its credibility. That wasnt my report for criteria. Im still searching

makaya325

9th January 2009, 05:38 PM

No other details, kitz. Is the area rich in food? no

The sighting is likely a deformed man

makaya325

9th January 2009, 05:51 PM

Yes, kitz. Even though i find these reports cool, i have no way of knowing if theyre true or not

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 05:56 PM

No other details, kitz. Is the area rich in food? no

Haven't you seen the Monster Quest New York Bigfoot episode? Oh, that's prime habitat. Lots of food around. Police sightings, even!

The sighting is likely a deformed manYou mean like a guy with hypertrichosis walking around nude?

makaya325

9th January 2009, 05:59 PM

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:00 PM

Kitz, i would wager on some bf reports being large freaks of nature.

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:03 PM

Yes, kitz. Even though i find these reports cool, i have no way of knowing if theyre true or not

So why would you dismiss a NY report? There's lots of food. It's right by the Adirondacks. There's deer, fowl, fish, berries, roots, tubers, bugs...

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:06 PM

Kitz, mq is not even reliable. Its another one of the bs documentarys for ratings.

Kitz, there are a good # of weird people, some very large, That roam around my region. My friend and i, after we got pizza, encountered a large homeless man in a local park. This man was tall, around 6ft 10, and his mass was enormous! I see why people who see bf are petrified

You didn't answer my question. Did you watch the episode or not? Did you see the police officer's testimony? Did you listen to Bigfoot scientist and biologist John Bindernagel investigate the evidence and say the finds were compelling? Did you listen to what the members of NESRA had to say?

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:09 PM

Kitz, i would wager on some bf reports being large freaks of nature.

Yes, but you are also making it clear that for reasons not yet clear, you find some Bigfoot reports to be compelling. This is in contradiction with when you decided to tell us you were in log's BF extinction camp. It doesn't sound like you know how you would like to represent yourself and what you believe.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:10 PM

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:12 PM

Kitz, just bc i find some reports interesting (not compelling) doesnt mean i think theyre alive today.

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:19 PM

Kitz, since your a hard skeptic, why ask me the ques? Yes i saw it, and besides bindernagel, i didnt care much. Ny doesnt have enough land for large animals to live undetected

Who are you to say there's not enough land? Vancouver Island field biologist Bindernagel who is a lot more qualified to offer an opinion disagrees with you. So who are you. What makes you so flippant to dismiss it? For one there are the Adirondacks. You think a big animal could hide in NY state? What about Bindernagel? He believes in Bigfoot first from evidence from Vancouver Island. Is that not less land then NY state?

Lets see: 20 per state=1000 bf in the us. Take canada into account, and it gets lower.

20 per state, 1000 in US? What kind of breeding population is that? 20? You realize every person of any type of expertise who has put serious thought and research into the matter comes up with numbers far higher than that. There's a good reason.

Are you just going back in the hat for numbers or do you know something those guys don't?

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:22 PM

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:22 PM

Kitz, just bc i find some reports interesting (not compelling) doesnt mean i think theyre alive today.

You went from Canada - Ontario, Alberta, BC and the PNW -Washington, Oregon, California down to just BC. You change your hats an awful lot.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:26 PM

Kitz, not really. Those areas you mentioned would be great areas for bf to hide in, assuming he exists today

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:27 PM

Kitz, its an estimate. Not every state will have 20. The average would likely be 20 per state. Also, add canada, which would take away the numbers from us, and make the individuals per state even less.

But you just said only BC. And they're crossing the border, right? What about these guys?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8961476ce9ce23ac2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9842)

Vancouver island is far far less populated than ny state.

But there's more places to hide in NY, right? Lots of the Van Isle reports are near towns.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:28 PM

Kitz, comparing ny to vancouver is silly. Also, alot of land arent near towns

Biscuit

9th January 2009, 06:30 PM

Old man, you find only a couple a year, despite the fact that their are over 93 million deer in the us?

Source on this please. The highest population number I can find is 30 million. Are you talking about all creatures whose common name ends in deer such as Mule Deer or White tail Deer or are you grouping Elk, Moose, and other deer like creatures with the others?

Now lets say that all deer like creatures equal 93 million. Well the total land mass of North America is apx 6,050,697,738 acres. That would mean that there are 65 deer like creatures per acre on average. Obviously you must take out land for cities, lakes, and other areas where deer don't live. I don't think the 93 million number works.

Most people only hike on trails and wild animals tend to avoid places that smell like humans unless they are desperate. Creatures do not die in places that are easy to find. Even the common house cat will sneak off to expire. Not finding bodies everywhere in the wild is not that strange.

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:33 PM

Kitz, not really. Those areas you mentioned would be great areas for bf to hide in, assuming he exists today

Let's see if you can make up your mind..

1) Bigfoot lives in BC, Alberta, Ontario, Washington, Oregon, California.

2) Bigfoot lives only BC

3) None of the above, Bigfoot is extinct

Please choose the number that fits your beliefs. You have stated all of these at one point or another which can not be. Please consider your answer carefully and expect that I will remember and hold you to your stated beliefs. Now you look like you're flip-flopping all over the place.

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 06:37 PM

Kitz, comparing ny to vancouver is silly. Also, alot of land arent near towns

Please explain to me why it is silly. Bigfoot is reported wandering through strawberry fields in Duncan, Vancouver Island and near Tofino to name a couple of places. In New York near Valatie, Kinderhook, and Whitehall. All small towns. What is the difference? Explain that to me and try to make it make sense.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 06:54 PM

Exactly biscuit

Kitz, im going to go mostly with # 3.

Ny is small compared to bc, and remote regions of canada. Sorry bout the short response, im kind of busy

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 07:06 PM

Kitz, im going to go mostly with # 3.

Take your time. I'd rather you give me some answers you thought through.

Mostly? Mostly extinct? Look, they're gone or they are not. They are maintaining a breeding population now or that population is gone.

Please explain "mostly."

makaya325

9th January 2009, 07:11 PM

Im quite confident theyre extinct, although i may be wrong, and they may ve alive

Crowlogic

9th January 2009, 07:22 PM

Kitz, since your a hard skeptic, why ask me the ques? Yes i saw it, and besides bindernagel, i didnt care much. Ny doesnt have enough land for large animals to live undetected

Lets see: 20 per state=1000 bf in the us. Take canada into account, and it gets lower.

Haven't spent much time in New York State have you? I could take you to a few places where the only sound of civilization are in the form of high flying aircraft. Yould could be walking though the forest and not know whether you've crossed into Canada or Vermont. Better have a compass too because you'll be spending some serious lost time if you loose your bearings. Bigfoot could get on pretty happily in the Adirondack preserve. But the deal is done as far as that goes.

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 07:25 PM

Haven't spent much time in New York State have you?

Lives there.

bruto

9th January 2009, 08:01 PM

Kitz, since your a hard skeptic, why ask me the ques? Yes i saw it, and besides bindernagel, i didnt care much. Ny doesnt have enough land for large animals to live undetected

Lets see: 20 per state=1000 bf in the us. Take canada into account, and it gets lower. But the whole point is that according to the lore, they're not living undetected. People keep seeing them. They're only living unproven, which is a different thing. If bigfoots can flourish anywhere, they ought to do fine in the Adirondacks.

Side note to Crowlogic - I get your point, but I guarantee that if you're in New York state you'll know if you blunder into Vermont. Check that map again.

makaya325

9th January 2009, 08:10 PM

Bruto, did you ever realize that people hoax things to confuse people with the real thing

kitakaze

9th January 2009, 08:17 PM

Bruto, did you ever realize that people hoax things to confuse people with the real thing

So people are hoaxing Bigfoot encounters in New York to confuse people about the real encounters. But you think Bigfoot is extinct so there are no real encounters.

bruto

9th January 2009, 09:14 PM

Bruto, did you ever realize that people hoax things to confuse people with the real thingI'm not even sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that hoax sightings are a diversion to protect the real bigfoot? Or are you suggesting, as LAL has in the past, that otherwise honest people are supplementing real evidence with hoaxes in an attempt to overcome stubborn skeptics' resistance to the truth?

I think people make up hoaxes because they're liars. People imagine things and make mistakes because it's easy to do, and it's much more interesting to believe you saw a bigfoot in the woods than to admit you found the woods creepy and full of noises.

Others, such as some of the boosters of the putative Whitehall sasquatch, are just trying to cash in on some of the tourist dollars they see heading up the lake to get a look at Champ.

tyr_13

9th January 2009, 09:21 PM

Haven't spent much time in New York State have you? I could take you to a few places where the only sound of civilization are in the form of high flying aircraft. Yould could be walking though the forest and not know whether you've crossed into Canada or Vermont. Better have a compass too because you'll be spending some serious lost time if you loose your bearings. Bigfoot could get on pretty happily in the Adirondack preserve. But the deal is done as far as that goes.

Excuse me? You wouldn't notice crossing that huge waterway into Canada? That's skill.

(Is in New York too.)

LTC8K6

9th January 2009, 10:36 PM

What about pigfoot? My favorite report...

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong?

Who could fail to notice flying porcines squealing as they go?

Old man

10th January 2009, 04:39 AM

So why would you dismiss a NY report? There's lots of food. It's right by the Adirondacks. There's deer, fowl, fish, berries, roots, tubers, bugs... ...more than 33" of annual rainfall...

Old man

10th January 2009, 04:50 AM

Now lets say that all deer like creatures equal 93 million. Well the total land mass of North America is apx 6,050,697,738 acres. That would mean that there are 65 deer like creatures per acre on average. Uhm, Biscuit, ole buddy ole pal, you might wanna check your math. That works out to 65 acres per deer, not "65 deer like creatures per acre". :boxedin:

Old man

10th January 2009, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Haven't spent much time in New York State have you?
Lives there.
Nope. :D I thought he said Long Island. :duck:

Old man

10th January 2009, 05:08 AM

Side note to Crowlogic - I get your point, but I guarantee that if you're in New York state you'll know if you blunder into Vermont. Check that map again.

Excuse me? You wouldn't notice crossing that huge waterway into Canada? That's skill.

(Is in New York too.)
Sorry, guy's Crow's right. Use Google Earth, and look at the area north of Malone, NY, and east of Hudson Falls, NY.

Where in NY, tyr_13?

kitakaze

10th January 2009, 07:25 AM

Nope. :D I thought he said Long Island. :duck:

They took Long Island out of New York??? 'Bout time!;)

bruto

10th January 2009, 08:18 AM

Sorry, guy's Crow's right. Use Google Earth, and look at the area north of Malone, NY, and east of Hudson Falls, NY.

Where in NY, tyr_13?Point taken, but Hudson Falls is well south of the Adirondacks - it's mostly farm country, and you wouldn't say very lost for very long.

There are some bits of the Taconics that could get pretty rough and dense, but from the thickest part I think you'd be drifting into Massachusetts, not Vermont, and if you started in the Adirondacks, you'd have to go through some pretty well settled areas, and find your way across the Hudson River and the Champlain Canal before you started to get lost. IN addition, although parts of the Taconic range are about as wild and craggy and dense as anything anywhere, it's a pretty narrow corridor. Plenty of room for crypto-beasts to hide if they felt like it, but it wouldn't take all that long for a hiker to climb a hill and spot civilzation somewhere (unless, of course, the crypto-beasts are hungry).

Correa Neto

10th January 2009, 09:50 AM

Makaya, you just can not take numbers out of nowhere. For example, you talked about 20 specimens per state. Have you ever heard about the 50/500 rule? It states that for short-term species survival, at least 50 breeding specimens are required (500 for long-term). Note that not all specimens of a population will be able to breed and that the breeding specimens must be in touch. Five isolated populations composed of ten breeding individuals each will have a dim future.

Of course this is a very general, broad rule, but considerations like this one should be considered in any speculation regarding bigfoot population.

Old man

10th January 2009, 10:39 AM

They took Long Island out of New York??? 'Bout time!;) Don't we wish. Many of us 'savages' (i.e. Upstaters) prefer to exclude everything south of Orange and Putnam Counties. :cool:

makaya325

10th January 2009, 10:49 AM

Correa, dont orangutans live solitary?

Old man

10th January 2009, 10:51 AM

Point taken, but Hudson Falls is well south of the Adirondacks - it's mostly farm country, and you wouldn't say very lost for very long.

There are some bits of the Taconics that could get pretty rough and dense, but from the thickest part I think you'd be drifting into Massachusetts, not Vermont, and if you started in the Adirondacks, you'd have to go through some pretty well settled areas, and find your way across the Hudson River and the Champlain Canal before you started to get lost. IN addition, although parts of the Taconic range are about as wild and craggy and dense as anything anywhere, it's a pretty narrow corridor. Plenty of room for crypto-beasts to hide if they felt like it, but it wouldn't take all that long for a hiker to climb a hill and spot civilzation somewhere (unless, of course, the crypto-beasts are hungry). I agree completely.

But, if we're going to help Makaya think clearly and logically about bigfoot, shouldn't we all be using fact based arguments?

makaya325

10th January 2009, 10:52 AM

Old, i want you to show good logic: i want to learn!

Old man

10th January 2009, 10:57 AM

Old, i want you to show good logic: i want to learn! Well, here's a good example -
Makaya, you just can not take numbers out of nowhere. For example, you talked about 20 specimens per state. Have you ever heard about the 50/500 rule? It states that for short-term species survival, at least 50 breeding specimens are required (500 for long-term). Note that not all specimens of a population will be able to breed and that the breeding specimens must be in touch. Five isolated populations composed of ten breeding individuals each will have a dim future.

Of course this is a very general, broad rule, but considerations like this one should be considered in any speculation regarding bigfoot population.

Hitch

10th January 2009, 11:12 AM

Point taken, but Hudson Falls is well south of the Adirondacks - it's mostly farm country, and you wouldn't say very lost for very long.

I'm not sure why we should dismiss farm country when looking for Bigfoot. Seems like a fine place to find a good throwing pig.

kitakaze

10th January 2009, 11:14 AM

I agree completely.

But, if we're going to help Makaya think clearly and logically about bigfoot, shouldn't we all be using fact based arguments?

I think we can help mayaka think clearly and logically about Bigfoot but I think mayaka needs to be a willing participant. being forthright is the first step. Mayaka needs to be clear about what he actually thinks about Bigfoot and not just say things for our benefit. If he really thinks Bigfoot existed yet disappeered from the Earth he needs to says so and why. He's said so but everything about the way he posts shows that he's still very invested in the idea that Bigfoot is walking around now.

kitakaze

10th January 2009, 11:18 AM

Correa, dont orangutans live solitary?

They have a known habitat range. They exist as a population within the range proximal enough to eachother to maintain that breeding population. They make noise, they get rowdy (young males that role together especially), and they are in contact with humans. We know about them and though they have plenty of reason to fear humans they approach us and allow us to approach them. If Bigfoot was out there it should be no different.

Correa Neto

10th January 2009, 01:14 PM

Correa, dont orangutans live solitary?
Check Kitakaze`s post.

Adult male orangs have a broad territory, encompassing a number of smaller territories which belong to females. A similar case would be those of tigers, jaguars and leopards. Following the rule, you`ll need at least 50 breeding specimens (of course, the number of female specimens will be larger than the number of males) of orang-utangs to have a short-term viable population. Now, imagine the size of each territory and figure out how many space such population would need.

What the "bigfoot experts" say about the size of a male specimen`s territory? Regardless of your speculation of choice -if they form relatively stable pairs, like humans or if an alpha male has an haren of Pattys- its easy to see that a huge chunk of alleged bigfoot country (possibly most of it) probably could not host viable populations if these animal existed due to habitat fragmentation.

makaya325

10th January 2009, 02:13 PM

Check Kitakaze`s post.

Adult male orangs have a broad territory, encompassing a number of smaller territories which belong to females. A similar case would be those of tigers, jaguars and leopards. Following the rule, you`ll need at least 50 breeding specimens (of course, the number of female specimens will be larger than the number of males) of orang-utangs to have a short-term viable population. Now, imagine the size of each territory and figure out how many space such population would need.

What the "bigfoot experts" say about the size of a male specimen`s territory? Regardless of your speculation of choice -if they form relatively stable pairs, like humans or if an alpha male has an haren of Pattys- its easy to see that a huge chunk of alleged bigfoot country (possibly most of it) probably could not host viable populations if these animal existed due to habitat fragmentation.

Wouldnt they live isolated from each other in na? A long living, slow reproducing animal would have large #'s. What makes you think that people can find bones in highly acidic, moist enviornments, if we cant even find bodies of many 10ft apes in china, where fossilization is great

Biscuit

10th January 2009, 07:35 PM

Exactly biscuit

I suppose I didn't quite word that right. You shouldn't expect deer bodies everywhere you go in the wild. However, deer bodies are found from time to time. While one should not expect to find lots of bigfoot bodies one should expect to have found some remains. The fact that there are not dead deer everywhere is not evidence that bigfoot could exist.

To Old: That is by far the stupidest mistake I have made. I apologize, I had been drinking. However, I would like it if Makaya could furnish some source for his statements.

I will leave the math to the pro's from now on.

Correa Neto

10th January 2009, 07:35 PM

Makaya, I think you are mixing unrelated issues and not fully understanding what I am trying to explain.

If the specimens live in complete isolation, they will never breed. Individual territories must overlap. In the particular case where males and females have very small overlapping territories, the required space for a healty breeding population increases even further; habitat fragmentation due to roads, farms, cities, etc becomes an even bigger issue.

Note also that the 50/500 general guideline will still be valid for animals with long lives and slow reproduction rates. I could go deeper and write why the proposed slow reproduction rate and long lifetimes add extra holes in bigfoot`s bucket.

Now, the fossil and remains issue... Well, I am not completely sure on how it is linked with the population aspect we are talking about, but let`s check it out. Please note that it was discussed ad nauseaum at the 411PGF thread and other bigfoot threads - and sorry, it has big gapping holes. I`ll just touch a few problems with this argument here.

1. Bigfeet are supposed to live across a vast stretch of land. Along its alleged habitat, not all soils are as you described. Conditions similar to those which favored the preservation of gigantopithecus in Asia and all the hominids in Africa and Asia do happen and happened in bigfoot country. The very existence of these fossil remains adds another problem to the proposal of bigfeet as real creatures. Why we have their remains and no bigfeet remains?
2. The preservation odds at rainforests is greatly underestimated by many a footer. You already read people right here telling you this. Now, even if the odds are small, think about this- What will happen when you have small odds but test your luck a lot of times?

tyr_13

10th January 2009, 08:00 PM

Sorry, guy's Crow's right. Use Google Earth, and look at the area north of Malone, NY, and east of Hudson Falls, NY.

Where in NY, tyr_13?

Damn it Malone! To be fair I've always thought of Le Haut-Saint-Laurent as part of New York anyway. :p

But actually, you'd have to be trying pretty hard to get lost and accidentally find yourself in Canada at that boarder. It isn't exactly a lot of deep woods there around all those farms. Sure, if you followed the Trout you might end up at the boarder station, but I'm pretty sure they'd tell you that that's Canada. The woods near there are crossed by a few dirt roads anyway, besides the rivers and random heavy rills. Pretty good fishing though. It still doesn't actually fit the description, but I don't get any points by being right on accident or technicality.

I'm in the southern tier of western New York, which is affectionately referred to as both 'the snow belt' and 'ski country'. Snow warning in affect until 6 tomorrow morning.

makaya325

11th January 2009, 01:42 PM

Correa, asia was then great in fossilization. The main hotspots for bf, over 50 percent coming from the pnw region, have Terrible soil. It takes only days for an animal to decompose

makaya325

11th January 2009, 01:43 PM

Correa, i know that if you want to find fossils, an temperate rain forest would not be the best place to look

Correa Neto

11th January 2009, 02:09 PM

Makaya, this issue has been discussed a lot. Maybe the search function would be handy for you. It would be a nice starter if you -as well as anyone trying to use acid soils to explain the absence of bigfoot fossils- first noticed that fossils do not form in soils but within sediments. You also perhaps don`t know that even what some claim to be bigfoot prime habitat- PNW- is not a desert when it comes down to fossils from the propper age.

Asia is not "great" when it comes down to fossilization. Its just a wide place, with several different types of geologic "settings", not unlike North America and the whole area where bigfeet are supposed to live.

Not to mention that there`s that problem with sighting report reliability. Estabilishing bigfoot prime habitat (assuming they are real) based on sighting reports will be very tricky if you can`t figure out or develop a propper methodology for studying the sightings.

makaya325

11th January 2009, 08:09 PM

Well i guess, correa. Im aware there is a tar pit, and the kenniwick man was found in pnw. Still, if all reports were true, we would find tons of bones. If only a fraction are true, Then its tricky.

Correa Neto

12th January 2009, 01:16 AM

As I told you before, we already covered this more than once.

The Pleistocene fossil register for bigfoot country is quite richer than the tar pits. Megafauna remains at caves, river and lake deposits... You can check this by yourself either by googling or by using this site`s search function with "Pleistocene fossil Pacific Northwest" keywords.

Acient remains from apes and hominids (including those who dwelled at forests) were found at caves, fluvial and laccustrine deposits. All these potential preservation sites are found within bigfoot country and I think they were more studied than their counterparts at Africa and Asia. No bigfoot-like creature bones...

Try checking the informations spreaded within bigfootery outside from bigfootery. You`ll see that quite often they are not correct.

As for the sightings given their nature and the fact that at the moment not a single one has been confirmed as real... Not to mention that, assuming these animals are real, sighting reports would only reflect the current status of the population (assuming you managed to create a good methodology to remove the bad data points). A population quite likely under stress by anthropic activity, whose numbers have been decreaed when compared to the past.

Old man

12th January 2009, 04:58 AM

...That is by far the stupidest mistake I have made... Friend, if confusalating the units in an equation was "the stupidest mistake" I had made ever made, I would think I was in fat city! :)

Old man

12th January 2009, 05:07 AM

The main hotspots for bf, over 50 percent coming from the pnw region, have Terrible soil. It takes only days for an animal to decompose Makaya, in the pnw region, how many days, on average (please state the total # of animals in the study(ies), shortest time, longest time, mean, and standard deviation) does it take for a deer (whitetail, blacktail or mule) to completely decompose, including the major bones?

Old man

12th January 2009, 09:52 AM

But actually, you'd have to be trying pretty hard to get lost and accidentally find yourself in Canada at that boarder. It isn't exactly a lot of deep woods there around all those farms. Sure, if you followed the Trout you might end up at the boarder station, but I'm pretty sure they'd tell you that that's Canada. The woods near there are crossed by a few dirt roads anyway, besides the rivers and random heavy rills. Pretty good fishing though. It still doesn't actually fit the description, but I don't get any points by being right on accident or technicality. I agree.

I'm in the southern tier of western New York, which is affectionately referred to as both 'the snow belt' and 'ski country'. Snow warning in affect until 6 tomorrow morning. Finger Lakes.

tyr_13

12th January 2009, 10:25 AM

Chautauqua lake actually, which, by the way, is great to try to hear people and computers pronounce.

Biscuit

12th January 2009, 11:38 AM

Friend, if confusalating the units in an equation was "the stupidest mistake" I had made ever made, I would think I was in fat city! :)

Don't worry I am still young, I have many great mistakes still to make.:D

Old man

12th January 2009, 12:21 PM

Chautauqua lake actually, which, by the way, is great to try to hear people and computers pronounce.
Canandaigua,
Tioughnioga,
Kanadasaga,
Canaseraga,
and, oddly enough,
Keuka and Cayuga, which people seem to think are pronounced exactly the same.

makaya325

12th January 2009, 02:28 PM

Correa, im aware of the rich fossil history found in the caves. However, caves are the only hope for an animal to fossilize itself. Since we have never lived side by side with another hominid, we cant say how rare this thing is. Sasquatch could possibly be the rarest animal to ever live.

kitakaze

12th January 2009, 02:47 PM

Correa, im aware of the rich fossil history found in the caves. However, caves are the only hope for an animal to fossilize itself.

What? The geologist you are talking to just outlined a number of scenarios whereby living things become fossilized in sediments that don't involve caves.

Since we have never lived side by side with another hominid,

Wrong. Please don't state as fact something which you do not understand. Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis are two of thye most recent examples to the contrary.

Sasquatch could possibly be the rarest animal to ever live.

Please outline the logic by which Bigfoots would be any rarer than known animals for which we have specimens.

makaya325

12th January 2009, 03:58 PM

Kitz, and do we have both species by the truckload? No we dont.

Bigfoots, perhaps a couple 100, isolated from each other, long living, slow reproducing , would be incredibly difficult to find. Assume they live 50 years, bones wouldnt last that long. There are no known natural predators it has.

William Parcher

12th January 2009, 04:08 PM

There are no known natural predators it has.

Bears and cougars eat people. Why wouldn't they eat a Bigfoot?

makaya325

12th January 2009, 04:10 PM

tyr_13

12th January 2009, 04:19 PM

Sharing the same niche is actually an excellent reason to attack each other. You think that apex predators don't fight?

William Parcher

12th January 2009, 04:23 PM

William, maybe the remains of one, but a cougar couldnt even take down a gorilla.

Surprise attack from behind and fangs deep in the neck. It's over pretty fast for the Boss.

Sorry, the only animal that would match it is a grizzly bear, but they wouldnt likely attack each other, since they share the same niche

Dude, sharing the same ecological niche is grounds for resentment and attack.

Young Bigfoots must be incredibly vulnerable to predation and territorial attacks from other big animals. Any Bigfoot that surprises a mother bear with cubs could get torn apart.

bruto

12th January 2009, 08:25 PM

The problem with the whole thing still seems to be that if bigfoots are as rare and elusive as Makaya takes them to be, that means that most of the sightings and other evidence must be bunk. So now we're faced with a question of how we evaluate sightings.

1. I saw a big hairy man-like creature loping across a hayfield in Whitehall. Sorry, dude, bigfoots wouldnt live there, so you must have seen something else.

2. I saw a big hairy man-like creature slipping into the deep northwest woods. Wow, dude, that must have been a bigfoot, because they really could live there.

Do you see the problem here?

kitakaze

12th January 2009, 08:32 PM

If you really want to sit down and think about it then yeah, it's a pickle. For young makaya and those like him it is no pickle at all.

You saw a big hairy man-like creature loping across a hayfield in Whitehall? It was a deformed human. No fuss, no muss.

bruto

12th January 2009, 09:14 PM

Actually my theory is that after all the fuss about Patty and all those expeditions, the bigfoots hightailed it east to get away from the publicity. They rode the rods to Whitehall, where they blended into the local population. See that guy out ice fishing with the ratty down coat, the wool hat and the size 16 Sorels? Remember those railroad men Bob Dylan sang about, who'd smoke your eyelids and punch your cigarette? Yep. Squatches!

Biscuit

12th January 2009, 09:18 PM

William, maybe the remains of one, but a cougar couldnt even take down a gorilla. Sorry, the only animal that would match it is a grizzly bear, but they wouldnt likely attack each other, since they share the same niche

Where on earth do you get this from? How do you know what a cougar could kill? Seeing as how cougars stalk their pray and use surprise to their benefit I think a cougar could easily kill a bigfoot or a gorilla.

Obviously this is pure speculation. This reminds me of the show that would use computers and special effects shops to pit a hippo Vs. a Shark and other such odd battles. The fact remains that until you can establish that bigfoot even exists you have no idea what can kill it. Work on making it live first.

kitakaze

12th January 2009, 09:44 PM

William, maybe the remains of one, but a cougar couldnt even take down a gorilla. Sorry, the only animal that would match it is a grizzly bear, but they wouldnt likely attack each other, since they share the same niche

I enjoy the Bigfoot enthusiast pastime of speculating on Bigfoot vs bear encounters. It's like Star Wars geeks trying to hash out who's the most powerful Force user. Here is a video by the late bear eaten Timothy Treadwell of two grizzly bears opening up a can of whoopass on eachother:

Grizzly Bear V.S. Grizzly Bear: Best Fight Ever Recorded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksIryBkJEQI)

Imagine diaper butt Patty being on the wrong end of that. There would be little Patty bits all over the place.

(Note the interesting maneuver employed by the top bear around 1:10.:eek:)

kitakaze

12th January 2009, 10:05 PM

It's a hard knock life. Infiltrators (Bigfoot) have it tough and the 12 noon showdown at the riverside with the incontinent grizzly is just the beginning. A lot of bad mamajamas get into the mix. Megabrain aliens, mummies, vampires, red man, 7ft Jawas... it's crazy!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0oyOk-3ueg

Correa Neto

13th January 2009, 03:39 AM

I enjoy the Bigfoot enthusiast pastime of speculating on Bigfoot vs bear encounters. It's like Star Wars geeks trying to hash out who's the most powerful Force user. Here is a video by the late bear eaten Timothy Treadwell of two grizzly bears opening up a can of whoopass on eachother:

Grizzly Bear V.S. Grizzly Bear: Best Fight Ever Recorded

Imagine diaper butt Patty being on the wrong end of that. There would be little Patty bits all over the place.

(Note the interesting maneuver employed by the top bear around 1:10.)
Well, poor Hieronimus (or whoever wore the costume) would be submerged in deep poo...

We all know who's the most powerfull Force user- Jar Jar Binks. Its the only way to explain its survival.

makaya325

13th January 2009, 01:16 PM

Kitz, try putting up a large alpha male silverback against a bear. The silverback would give the bear a hard time

William Parcher

13th January 2009, 01:54 PM

Kitz, try putting up a large alpha male silverback against a bear. The silverback would give the bear a hard time

Right up until the moment the bear chews his face off.

Hitch

13th January 2009, 01:59 PM

Okay, before this degenerates into "40 Cambodian midgets vs. a lion" can I point out that was settled nearly 4 years ago?

kitakaze

13th January 2009, 02:02 PM

Kitz, try putting up a large alpha male silverback against a bear. The silverback would give the bear a hard time

A grizzly bear? You're silly. Here's some kids your age talking about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMeWo9SVYD0

Here is how an alpha male silverback gorilla faces of against another gorilla:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG3sHkKwwt4

That gorilla encountering a full-grown grizzly like the ones I showed you would make more poopies than the bears ever could and run for their lives. If they didn't, they would make a rather big bear snack. Grizzlies have big snacks all the time.

Miss_Kitt

13th January 2009, 02:20 PM

And that's just current predators. Don't forget that in order for BF to exist, he'd have to have survived since, oh, let's say the end of glaciation at the least. So, the short-faced bear and the "dire wolf" come into play; the buffalo wolves, for those that crossed the Great Plains (on their way to Georgia); plus early North American Man. I would expect that, if Bigfoot existed, we'd see bits of BF bones in the middens: Those long, thick bones would be great for tool-making, for example!

More importantly, all of the megafauna listed above are known because we have examples. And, yes, even in the northwest, we have decent fossils. The Burke Museum at the University of Washington has some cool stuff, for example, from more local digs. We have the preserved remains of coastal AmerInd houses preserved by mudslides; we have entire forests submerged by catastrophic earthquakes. It seems likely that somewhere, somehow, at least ONE bigfoot bone would be preserved. Some furry body found when an avalanche chute thaws out in the spring, at least.

And, as mentioned previously, we'd also see impacts on the other predator and prey animals from having an apex predator or competing grazer in an area. And we'd see evidence of their kills. Or are you supposing that they consume every shred of their kill, bones, hooves, and all?

We find kills from other animals; we find scat. Heck, we find scat from human hunters!

The copious absense of sasquatch and his forebearers from the fossil and more recent record requires a serious suspension of disbelief to get past.

Don't get me wrong, if somebody brings in a body that passes muster, I'll be thrilled. But I will also be quite surprised.

just my thoughts, MK

Miss_Kitt

13th January 2009, 02:31 PM

Kitz, try putting up a large alpha male silverback against a bear. The silverback would give the bear a hard time

Makaya -- You need to stop thinking in terms of a large male being the specimen attacked. Most predation occurs on the old, the young, the injured, and the sick. Adult elephants are not generally prey--for anything but humans--but the young are certainly hunted, and in times of famine, even adolescents are occasionally attacked.

Lest the argument now become, "But they travel in family groups, so the alpha male will defend the young," let me point out that if they travel in family groups, the odds of them being spotted or leaving discernable trail-sign become much larger than if they travel alone. And the amount of food they need to take in a given region to meet their needs goes up, with the expected increase in evidence of foraging and hunting.

I'd be happy to re-examine the argument if someone can show me studies where there is a clear absence of the high-level predators to be supported by a large group of prey animals, but I haven't seen such a gap.

If you think of rare animals like Florida panthers, wolves in the Pacific NW, or lions in India, we've gone looking for them; we've found evidence of their existance in spoor and sign; and then we've found the animals. In the case of India, we actually can show by the discovery of preserved remains that they had a much wider range, and were gradually pushed out of most of India by the superior predation of the tiger.

The copious absense of such evidence for hominids has me on the "doubt" side of the ledger.

--Miss Kitt

makaya325

13th January 2009, 08:12 PM

Miss, yes, we have found cougars after LOOKING EXTENSIVELY. Its not like any one bothers to look for bigfoot. A bone or fossil (which is more of a chance event, look at how many species we dont even know about) would be a rare thing

kitakaze

13th January 2009, 08:20 PM

Its not like any one bothers to look for bigfoot.

Makaya, what exactly are you doing? Are you willfully pretending that you haven't already repeatedly been given plenty of examples of people extensively searching for Bigfoot?

Also are you willfully pretending that it hasn't been explained to you many times that you don't need to specifically look for Bigfoot remains to find them?

One gets the sense that you really don't want to be amenable to factual information and are clinging onto irrational Bigfoot beliefs in the face of information, evidences, and proofs to the contrary.

makaya325

13th January 2009, 08:21 PM

No, kitz, im aware you sent me links. When the cougar was mentioned, was anyone aware those big cats are found in crowded areas after weeks and weeks of searching?

makaya325

13th January 2009, 08:22 PM

I dont understand how an amateur search is qualified as a search. Wouldnt a full blown science expedition be qualified as a search

kitakaze

13th January 2009, 08:47 PM

No, kitz, im aware you sent me links. When the cougar was mentioned, was anyone aware those big cats are found in crowded areas after weeks and weeks of searching?

Source, please.

kitakaze

13th January 2009, 08:52 PM

I dont understand how an amateur search is qualified as a search. Wouldnt a full blown science expedition be qualified as a search

A search is a search, amateur or scientific. People going to where Bigfoot has been reported and alleged evidence found always has the potential to find Bigfoot.

What is more, I and others have on a number of occasions given you examples of extensive searches done by scientists and professionals. Why do you pretend otherwise? What type of maneuver is that? Some people have very poor memories or conditions such as ADD that affect their ability to keep information in their mind. I hope that is not the case. I also hope that you were sincere when you said you wanted to learn what the facts are.

bruto

13th January 2009, 11:17 PM

.... look at how many species we dont even know about...

Ummm... Doesn't "don't even know about" mean that we don't even know about them? What are we missing here?

Old man

14th January 2009, 05:22 AM

Old, i want you to show good logic: i want to learn!

It takes only days for an animal to decompose...

Makaya, in the pnw region, how many days (please state the total # of animals in the study(ies), shortest time, longest time, mean, and standard deviation) does it take for a deer (whitetail, blacktail or mule) to completely decompose, including the major bones?

Makaya, why haven't you addressed my question? I thought you wanted to learn! So do I. Help me, please. Where did you get the above information?

Correa Neto

14th January 2009, 08:05 AM

Makaya, once again I will advise you to be very carefull regarding some informations and reasonings available at bigfoot literature and sites.

"No one is looking for them" is a big fallacy, and here's why- you really will not need to be looking for giant apes (assuming they exist) to find one if you are where they live(d).

When a paleontologist goes to the field he/she can not be sure that only fossils of the critter of his/hers speciality will be found; neither will he/she ignore remains which do not belong to this particular critter. One might be looking for bear fossils but eventually finds only saber cats. Usually the team finds or heads towards a site where there are remains of several species, collects, studies and catalogues them all. The most strange ones are usually the first ones to be studied for obvious reasons (new species = publication).

A roughly similar situation happens with say, biologists studying wildlife. Someone studying marmots will not miss unusual turds, giant footprints, weird hair tuffs or the remains of a giant ape.

Old man

14th January 2009, 08:46 AM

A roughly similar situation happens with say, biologists studying wildlife. Someone studying marmots will not miss unusual turds, giant footprints, weird hair tuffs or the remains of a giant ape. Field assistant: "Hey Doc! We got some pics of some kinda giant hairy ape on the trail cam last night! What do ya want me to do with them?"

Researcher: "Delete them! We're studying marmots. Our funding agency would yank us right of the field if they found out we're wasting our time on a previously unknown species!" :rolleyes:

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 08:49 AM

Just a question (and my first post of 2009):
How reasonable is it that 8-10 foot tall hominids remain undetected by wildlife researchers and managers in even densley-populated areas of the country?
As a visual aid to what exactly an 8-10 foot tall hominid looks like, here's an image of a 5'6" tall woman to scale with an 8 foot tall and a 10 foot tall hominid.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10506496e16c58c496.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14866)
The size is truly staggering.
Now just imagine something like that, with its necessarily huge caloric intake, evading any and all detection by wildlife officials (including a remarkable lack of huge dung piles).
I now return you to makaya235's "Yeah, but...what if..." routine...

LONGTABBER PE

14th January 2009, 09:03 AM

Its good to periodicly post scaled pictures to illustrate the immense size of these alleged creatures.

Its hard to hide something like that.

Crowlogic

14th January 2009, 10:04 AM

Interesting scaling. Did that on BFF ages ago 8', 10', 12'. When you see it THAT big, THAT big is too big to be true. As soon as I hear "It was 9', 10' or 12' tall I begin my exit.

Crowlogic

14th January 2009, 10:12 AM

I dont understand how an amateur search is qualified as a search. Wouldnt a full blown science expedition be qualified as a search

Please understand makaya325 that there are people out there with reason to look in a detailed manner at the potential habitat of these things. If its there you WILL find it sooner or later. There have been and still are thousand's of eyes and tens of thousands of man hours gathering all sorts of information out there. And while I'm in less than agreement with much of this forum's MO much of it is valid.

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 01:50 PM

Interesting scaling. Did that on BFF ages ago 8', 10', 12'. When you see it THAT big, THAT big is too big to be true. As soon as I hear "It was 9', 10' or 12' tall I begin my exit.

Why?
Gigantopithecus blacki is thought by some (not all) to have stood up to 10' tall when bipedal.

makaya325

14th January 2009, 01:59 PM

bf's are generally reported to stand 7ft, but very massive. Sometimes even eight feet. When you look at the size of canada, its easy to see something could hide in an area as remote as tibet

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:01 PM

Why need large dung piles? This is not a t-rex we are talking about. We are talking about an animal roughly larger than a large man. How is a 5 inch turd massive?

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:02 PM

Kitz, ever heard of ABC'S?

Old man

14th January 2009, 02:03 PM

bf's are generally reported to stand 7ft, but very massive. Sometimes even eight feet. When you look at the size of canada, its easy to see something could hide in an area as remote as tibet I forget - is Tibet part of Canada, or is it the other way around? :confused:

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:07 PM

Old man, i said areas of canada are as remote as tibet

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 02:12 PM

Why need large dung piles? This is not a t-rex we are talking about. We are talking about an animal roughly larger than a large man. How is a 5 inch turd massive?

Any idea how much dung a bear (roughly larger than a man) leaves each day?
Or a gorilla?
Have some fun and look it up. You'll be impressed.
Any idea how wildlife officials keep track of said bears and gorillas?
I'll give you a hint...the massive volumes of excrement these animals (one an omnivore and one a herbivore) leave in their daily wanderings. They leave piles behind at least once and usually several times a day. So much poo in fact, that it is quite easy to keep track not only of individuals (through DNA analysis of said doody), but also entire populations of these animals across thousands of square miles.
I'll assume you are simply unaware of the basics of wildlife ecology, wildlife managment, and tracking.
I'll also assume that you are unaware of the various field guides to dung (oh yes, they exist) in which examples of all the mammalian species of North America are represented. Yet somehow, no huge primate droppings have been catalogued by those who are in the field on a daily basis, doing research, and busting their humps to gather as much data as possible before the day's end.

Carry on...

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:19 PM

Desert, and do you realize how long poo lasts in the wild? How many animal dung are found days after?

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 02:25 PM

Desert, and do you realize how long poo lasts in the wild? How many animal dung are found days after?

As a matter of fact, I do.
It can last up to several months depending on moitsure content of the substrate, the air, degree of soil acidity or alkalinity, content of the poo itself, presence or absence of coprophagous organisms, etc.
Bison, antelope, and coyote poo on the plains can last up to a year.
Bear, wolf, and ungulate poo can last for weeks in the forest.
But, why do you ask?

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:28 PM

Because my dog poo in the back yard is frozen

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:29 PM

Yes, poo in a brush in a huge area would definitely be found every 8 seconds.:confused:

William Parcher

14th January 2009, 02:33 PM

Yes, poo in a brush in a huge area would definitely be found every 8 seconds.:confused:

I just knew that when the conversation turned to things that fall out of asses... you'd pull another number out of your ass.

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 02:33 PM

Yes, poo in a brush in a huge area would definitely be found every 8 seconds.:confused:

Why 8 seconds?
Why's it in a brush?
Or is this just an attempt at sarcasm due to a lack of an appropriate response? Would you argue that wildlife researchers do not in fact use droppings to monitor individuals or populations?

But it's good you noticed your dog's droppings have frozen. Freezing is a fantastic way to preserve dung. In Tibet ( a place you mention frequently), primate droppings would indeed freeze solid very quickly and be found even more easily than in North America. Good job on the critical observation and thinking! NOW you're doing science!

makaya325

14th January 2009, 02:46 PM

Desert they do monitor wildlife, but going on a little trip wont guarantee you to see anything.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2886

Old man

14th January 2009, 02:55 PM

Old man, i said areas of canada are as remote as tibet No, Makaya, you didn't. You may have meant that, but you didn't WRITE it. It's been my experience that fuzzy thinking and fuzzy writing go hand in hand.

Anyway, I thought that you wanted to learn.

kitakaze

14th January 2009, 03:07 PM

Kitz, ever heard of ABC'S?

Mayaka, what kind of challenge is it to quote? Are you referring to the post where I said I hope you don't have a condition affecting your memory?

kitakaze

14th January 2009, 03:11 PM

Why need large dung piles? This is not a t-rex we are talking about. We are talking about an animal roughly larger than a large man. How is a 5 inch turd massive?

If Bigfoot doesn't eat animals than it eats a lot of vegetation which it stays close to like a gorilla, has a great big gut, and makes some giant poopies.
If it eats meat than we will find it buy it's predation or scavenging. Would a Bigfoot turn it's nose at a salmon run unlike every other PNW meat eater?

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 03:15 PM

And...yum...joggers!
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/27/bainwol_eating_his_customers.jpg

kitakaze

14th January 2009, 03:15 PM

Does Bigfoot have to do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaRRMbPwdwc

makaya325

14th January 2009, 03:19 PM

Kitz, are you not aware that there are reports (i suggest you read) that mention salmon

bruto

14th January 2009, 03:20 PM

Why?
Gigantopithecus blacki is thought by some (not all) to have stood up to 10' tall when bipedal.Is there any reason to believe that when that critter was extant it was hard to find or that its existence would have been doubtful to a contemporary?

makaya325

14th January 2009, 03:20 PM

Did you ever read E. Walkers account in 1840?

makaya325

14th January 2009, 03:21 PM

Bruto, doesnt it amaze you that, besides teeth (which should be found of any animal, even bf) no other remains exist, other than a jaw. Yet these 10ft giants existed a couple 100k's ago in fossilization haven

desertyeti

14th January 2009, 03:26 PM

Is there any reason to believe that when that critter was extant it was hard to find or that its existence would have been doubtful to a contemporary?

None that I can determine.
There's also the distinct possibility that this relative of the modern orangutan was about the same size as a modern orang (3.5-5 feet tall) and simply had enormous jaws.
The point I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to make is that Bigfooters like to throw around G. blacki as a candidate for their creature, yet also want to keep it within the shorter spectrum of things. Evidentally, Gogantopithecus is NOT therefore the best candidate. Cherry picking of anecdotal data (the worst kind) is guaranteed to result in complete and absolute nonsense when the final analysis is completed.

Yet these 10ft giants existed a couple 100k's ago in fossilization haven

And had to add: No one KNOWS that they were 10 feet tall (see above). They might have been pygmies like Paranthropus. And also, very few good fossils have been found from Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits in China, so it's not at all surprising that so little is known of the hominoids.