Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[kitakaze]

To all those who believe in Bigfoot, please watch the following videos.

The elusive and rare white kermode/spirit bear (in prime BF habitat):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vspuhFs5lZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjvpO...eature=related

Rare white deer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Tvk...eature=related

Florida panthers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szikcgOW1E

Rare elusive Javan rhinos:

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

Wolverine images:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmG7mEXqdcA

Ultra-rare venomous mammal, solenodon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWjyLIZr26Y

First ever footage of ultra-rare bulbous-headed snub fin dolphin:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzF-DvNkt9s&NR=1

Ultra-rare and elusive Pakistan snow leopard:

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

Tibetan blue bear in the wild and captivity:









OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube. You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers.

Any excuses or apologism will be dismantled. Can you handle this question?

[manofthesea]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube.
?

Did you know the average American never figured how to set their VCR clocks? Do you know the average intelligence of bigfoot hunters and their corresponding capabilities of properly operating a camcorder? The few who have are worthy of Monsterquest and other shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by manofthesea

Did you know the average American never figured how to set their VCR clocks? Do you know the average intelligence of bigfoot hunters and their corresponding capabilities of properly operating a camcorder? The few who have are worthy of Monsterquest and other shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

That is not a valid argument of why there are no unambiguous photos or images of this supposed giant mammal living, eating, sleeping, pooping, finding each other, mating, and dying all across the continent. Name any of the large mammals of North America currently existing and I can immediately show you that animal on youtube. Why can I not do this with Bigfoot? Insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans and Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all. An animal that you claim will chase people, scream as loud as a jet plane, cause all the woodland creatures to flee before it á la The Smurfs, and level the forest to get at you, and living across NA with viable breeding numbers that have been sustained for tens of thousands of years would have been filmed many, many times by now.

To argue otherwise is just mind-numbingly ridiculous.

[manofthesea]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans and Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all.

But you don't deny it. The truth may be politically incorrect, but it must be brought up in defense of inaccurate comparisons. Like my point in the "why no bigfoot roadkill" thread. I asked for the number of other apes roadkilled in their native habitat. All I got was obfuscation.

It's a valid point. Considering that the prefered method of hunting bigfoot is banging trees with a stick and packing an audio recorder. While pistol hunting from their car. On the outskirts of some yahoo town.

[rjh01]

Here is a youtube of bigfoot. It has had 168,991 views, rating of 4.5 and shows a figure that is very clear. I do not think there will be much discussion on what it is. What more do you want?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkFsvs_uKr0

[manofthesea]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Insulting the intelligence of ... Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all.
.

Do you ever read what you type?

[Vortigern99]

Well, this is the billion-dollar question, isn't it? If I had a few hours to spare, I might put together as thoughtful and well-researched a response as it deserves. Failing that, here are a few thoughts:

If I accept some reported sightings as possibly being true, that does not mean all reported sightings must be equally true. I personally am less inclined to credit reports of a sighting anywhere near civilization, or the more extreme reports of chase or violence -- leveling forests and the like -- than I am those of a reclusive resident of deep wilderness that manages to keep itself hidden most of the time. That it is sometimes spotted is a testament, perhaps, to its objective reality, not that its avoidance skills "suck" as one commentator recently put it.

I cannot speak to bigfoot's presence or absence in any region of the US or Canada other than those I've studied, the PNW and Texas. East Texas contains vast tracts of wet woodland, which according to a chimpanzee rehabilitation center in Louisiana could support and protect wild chimpanzees. (links later; tired) Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands, much of it national preserve, which could conceivably provide nutrition and cover for a small population of wild primates. I've heard a number as low as 200 put forward as necessary for a breeding population to continue for eons.

If these conjectured creatures share ancestry with orangs (which as descendants of Gigantopithecus they might), then it makes sense they might have a similar social structure as orangs -- namely, solitary males and family-group females, who occasionally come together to mate. If food is abundant in the woods of the PNW, from bugs and slugs to roots and nuts and perhaps some foliage and grass shoots, and predation by mountain lions is unlikely based on average size, then this kind of social grouping would make sense, since large social groups, normative to most primate species, are designed to protect food sources and keep predators away.

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue.

These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

...snip...All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue...snip...

Sorry, not enough of a reason. I suggest you -again- to use the advanced search function. Try fossils+bigfoot, or something like that, looking for my posts.

The "acid soil & mountain forest" excuses are nothing but footer misinformation.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Well, this is the billion-dollar question, isn't it? If I had a few hours to spare, I might put together as thoughtful and well-researched a response as it deserves. Failing that, here are a few thoughts:

If I accept some reported sightings as possibly being true, that does not mean all reported sightings must be equally true. I personally am less inclined to credit reports of a sighting anywhere near civilization, or the more extreme reports of chase or violence -- leveling forests and the like -- than I am those of a reclusive resident of deep wilderness that manages to keep itself hidden most of the time. That it is sometimes spotted is a testament, perhaps, to its objective reality, not that its avoidance skills "suck" as one commentator recently put it.

I cannot speak to bigfoot's presence or absence in any region of the US or Canada other than those I've studied, the PNW and Texas. East Texas contains vast tracts of wet woodland, which according to a chimpanzee rehabilitation center in Louisiana could support and protect wild chimpanzees. (links later; tired) Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands, much of it national preserve, which could conceivably provide nutrition and cover for a small population of wild primates. I've heard a number as low as 200 put forward as necessary for a breeding population to continue for eons.

If these conjectured creatures share ancestry with orangs (which as descendants of Gigantopithecus they might), then it makes sense they might have a similar social structure as orangs -- namely, solitary males and family-group females, who occasionally come together to mate. If food is abundant in the woods of the PNW, from bugs and slugs to roots and nuts and perhaps some foliage and grass shoots, and predation by mountain lions is unlikely based on average size, then this kind of social grouping would make sense, since large social groups, normative to most primate species, are designed to protect food sources and keep predators away.

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue.

These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture.

I like how you can read BF's mind and know aspects of their culture. Did you gain this knowledge by living among them or did some Indian tracker tell you?

How does the "enemy" call differ from the "friend" call? If we knew this we could go in the forest and call them in.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I cannot speak to bigfoot's presence or absence in any region of the US or Canada other than those I've studied, the PNW and Texas. East Texas contains vast tracts of wet woodland, which according to a chimpanzee rehabilitation center in Louisiana could support and protect wild chimpanzees. (links later; tired) Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands, much of it national preserve, which could conceivably provide nutrition and cover for a small population of wild primates. I've heard a number as low as 200 put forward as necessary for a breeding population to continue for eons.

A population of 200 individuals would be a genetic bottleneck, be teetering on extinction, and could not account for the sightings as reported. Look at this BFRO Texas report map:

http://bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=tx#map

A giant beast living in vialble breeding numbers so close to Dallas is not going to escape being filmed. People live and work in those areas. The TBRC has had cameras in those areas like Big Thicket for years and no Bigfoot.

Quote:

If these conjectured creatures share ancestry with orangs (which as descendants of Gigantopithecus they might), then it makes sense they might have a similar social structure as orangs -- namely, solitary males and family-group females, who occasionally come together to mate.

If Patty was a Bigfoot, she wasn't a Gigantopithecus. Her jaw is no match for Giganto. We have Giganto jaws to look at and they're huge. Patty doesn't compare in that regard. Also Giganto most likely ate largely bamboo with some fruits like jackfruit and durian. This is going to greatly affect their behaviour.

Quote:

If food is abundant in the woods of the PNW, from bugs and slugs to roots and nuts and perhaps some foliage and grass shoots, and predation by mountain lions is unlikely based on average size, then this kind of social grouping would make sense, since large social groups, normative to most primate species, are designed to protect food sources and keep predators away.

Remember, gorillas need around 9000 calories a day. Where is a viable breeding population of sasquatches getting the well over 9000 calories it needs in a day in Big Thicket, Texas, while never appearing on one of the many game trails in the area?

Quote:

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

But if they're like orangutans like you mention, they're going to be found. From orangs to the newly described Bili apes, apes are inquisitive animals. Orangs will often approach humans. Young orang males are notorious for their bad behaviour and the way in which they will harrass female orangs. If they're living in numbers enough to be making danger calls to one another when humans approach, it wouldn't matter if they learned to mimic "I've got a gun and I'll shoot!" They're still going to be found.

Quote:

All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue.

No, this part doesn't work. I mentioned this in another thread. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. 2/3 outside the PNW and plenty of archaeology in the PNW with fossil finds. We have bones for everything else currently maintaining breeding populations there, why not one of the biggest. You should definitely read Correa's posts on this. Did Bigfoot learn with the assistance of the Shaman of the Whills the Jedi art of becoming force ghosts upon death? That would make more sense almost!

Quote:

These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture.

Yes, Bill Munns said something similar to that, I believe...

[Correa Neto]

Before some enthusiast pops out claiming there are clear images, here's my updated collage of bigfoot imagery.

Veredict options (more than one may apply to each image)- Hoaxes, suspected of being hoaxes, too blurry to be of any use, misidentifications.
Unless, of course, you wish to believe bigfeet are blurry and/or people who take pics of bigfeet can't operate cameras...

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by tsig

How does the "enemy" call differ from the "friend" call? If we knew this we could go in the forest and call them in.

Simple...

1 knock for enemy.

2 for friend.

3 for garlic and beans.

4 and a plaintive moan for Bigfoot orgy.

[CurtisP]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is a youtube of bigfoot. It has had 168,991 views, rating of 4.5 and shows a figure that is very clear. I do not think there will be much discussion on what it is. What more do you want?

Best bigfoot ever.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

What experiences has bigfoot had with mankind that caused it to be cautious of us? Is it equally cautious of all other animals?

This is starting to sound like the bigfoot legend of it being a protector of the woodlands and having a supernatural origin and purpose. How could a reclusive and rare animal that lives in the most remote sections of the world have all learned to be cautious of humans?

[GT/CS]

Wasn't there a really clear photo of a huge bigfoot in Florida?

If I remember correctly a forest fire forced it out of the woods and it was seen by some helicopter pilots who were afraid of losing their jobs so the didn't report it. Luckily, a local resident, who was taking a photo of the helicopter found it in the photo.

I know the photo is around here somewhere.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

But, if we presume that BF exist, and that at least some of the reported sightings are genuine, then BF aren't avoiding humans. They're simply, somehow, avoiding being photographed clearly-which, unless they are just naturally blurry, would be impossible on their part.

Which takes us back to the original question: if BF does exist, why isn't there, at least, one example of a clear photograph or film footage?

And it is absurd to suggest that it is because many Americans can't program the clocks on their VCR's. My dad never figured out how to program the clock on his VCR, and he still managed to get pictures of deer and bear in Yosemite and Denali. He also stuck a double piece of masking tape over that darn VCR clock so he wouldn't have to see it flashing. Humans may have blind spots, but they can also think outside the box. If BF did exist, a determined human surely should have been able to get a clear picture by now.

[Correa Neto]

GT, you are talking about Creekfreak. The "bigfoot" of his picture can be seen in my collage just below Patty, to the left of the GAboys' bigfoot corpse. It was shown to be a doctored picture.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

GT, you are talking about Creekfreak. The "bigfoot" of his picture can be seen in my collage just below Patty, to the left of the GAboys' bigfoot corpse. It was shown to be a doctored picture.

Actually, I think GT is almost certainly referring to the Myakka skunk ape photo. It was featured prominently in the MQ skunk ape episode. Some think it is a fake while others are sure it is an orangutan.

ETA: Here are the images:

http://www.lorencoleman.com/images/S...omparison2.jpg

http://www.itsnature.org/wp-content/...kunk_ape_1.png

http://www.lorencoleman.com/images/M...e2_closeup.jpg

And a separate myakka ape video. Typical guys in the trees vid:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Again ETA: *properly reads GT's post*

[drapier]

You guys are too serious. GT was having a little bit of fun at Creakfreak's expense.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Actually, I think GT is almost certainly referring to the Myakka skunk ape photo. It's was featured prominently in the MQ skunk ape episode. Some think it is a fake while others are sure it is an orangutan.

No, I think he's referring to Creekfreak's photo, as well. Creek stated that the creature came out of the woods because of a forest fire, in front of a fire helicopter, and he claimed the pilots didn't report it because they were afraid of losing their jobs. If you remember, the focus of the full picture was the helicopter itself.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by desertgal

But, if we presume that BF exist, and that at least some of the reported sightings are genuine, then BF aren't avoiding humans. They're simply, somehow, avoiding being photographed clearly-which, unless they are just naturally blurry, would be impossible on their part.

Which takes us back to the original question: if BF does exist, why isn't there, at least, one example of a clear photograph or film footage?

And it is absurd to suggest that it is because many Americans can't program the clocks on their VCR's. My dad never figured out how to program the clock on his VCR, and he still managed to get pictures of deer and bear in Yosemite and Denali. He also stuck a double piece of masking tape over that darn VCR clock so he wouldn't have to see it flashing. Humans may have blind spots, but they can also think outside the box. If BF did exist, a determined human surely should have been able to get a clear picture by now.

Think outside the box? Aren't avoiding humans? What does that remind me of?

Oh yes! The MABRC trip out the sasquatches and get ambushed by four of them video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXRRkawM9s

YIKES!

Darkwing takes flight and No Mercy finds mercy.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Actually, I think GT is almost certainly referring to the Myakka skunk ape photo. It was featured prominently in the MQ skunk ape episode. Some think it is a fake while others are sure it is an orangutan.

ERR. Wrong, obviously referring to the Creekfreak photo of the blobstump, the uncropped photo of which, included a forest service helicopter. Even a little blackmail on the part of creek to reveal the photo to the press didn't land him a job with Florida Wildlife.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...g-foot-001.jpg

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Wasn't there a really clear photo of a huge bigfoot in Florida?

If I remember correctly a forest fire forced it out of the woods and it was seen by some helicopter pilots who were afraid of losing their jobs so the didn't report it. Luckily, a local resident, who was taking a photo of the helicopter found it in the photo.
I
know the photo is around here somewhere.

Wow, I messed up. Sorry, guys. Late night sleepy eyes. Totally missed the middle. Nevermind me.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

ERR. Wrong, obviously referring to the Creekfreak photo of the blobstump, the uncropped photo of which, included a forest service helicopter. Even a little blackmail on the part of creek to reveal the photo to the press didn't land him a job with Florida Wildlife.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...g-foot-001.jpg

Quite right. My bad. I don't know how I missed that middle part. I don't drink coffee but maybe I should.

[kitakaze]

I am glad I made that mistake in a way because I think you actually might get the odd Bigfoot enthusiast that would point to the Myakka skunk ape photo and claim it to be a good, clear image of Bigfoot.

[Correa Neto]

Just a reminder- Makaya, I mean Myakka, is at the right upper corner of my collage; its the orang-utangish thing with the white "beard".

[JcR]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I am glad I made that mistake in a way because I think you actually might get the odd Bigfoot enthusiast that would point to the Myakka skunk ape photo and claim it to be a good, clear image of Bigfoot.

I'm glad you posted the skunk ape Youtube link.
Led me to another cool video. I enjoyed it for some reason.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

At 2:22
Bigfoot Rocks Knocks to Bach

[kitakaze]

Correa, what is the one under the Minnesota Ice Man and also the one second from the left on the bottom? Don't think I recognize those.

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

What experiences has bigfoot had with mankind that caused it to be cautious of us? Is it equally cautious of all other animals?

This is starting to sound like the bigfoot legend of it being a protector of the woodlands and having a supernatural origin and purpose. How could a reclusive and rare animal that lives in the most remote sections of the world have all learned to be cautious of humans?

Notably, the animals that co-evolved with us in Africa that /are/ intrinsically cautious about humans can still be caught on camera. After all, there's actually nothing intrinsically risky for the animal's health about being caught on camera. A chimpanzee doesn't care that you've got a telephoto lens trained on it.

[Correa Neto]

The reddish stuff under the Minesota Icedummy was initially presented as an alien (captured by gametrail, but I may be mistaken); some people who think outside of the boxe proposed it could be a bigfoot. As for the other one, the green bigfoot, is said to be from Skamania... Just another hoax. There are some three or two threads about it at BFF.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Sorry, not enough of a reason. I suggest you -again- to use the advanced search function. Try fossils+bigfoot, or something like that, looking for my posts.

The "acid soil & mountain forest" excuses are nothing but footer misinformation.

I don't pretend to be an expert in this area. I derived my information on montane forest fossil decomposition from the NASI report, which of course has been shown to be incorrect in other areas and which is not immune to criticism. Nonetheless, in the report, author Glickman quotes British paleontologist Richard Fortey, a non-bigfooter who has written nothing about bigfoot, regarding rapid biological decomposition in montane forest (italicized section, below; the rest is Glickman).

Please point out the errors in Fortey's description and/or in Glickman's observations about them.

From http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasi3.html:

Some species leave behind records in the form of fossils, although few individual animals are converted to fossils. There are several possible reasons why fossils of Bigfoot have not been found:

* Non-existence. The phenomenon does not originate from an uncataloged animal.
* Environment. Certain environments are more likely to support fossil formation than others.
* Misclassification. Existing fossils attributed to an inappropriate genus or species.
* Undiscovered. Fossils exist but have not been unearthed.

The process of fossilization does not convert all deceased animals to fossils — most decompose before they can be fossilized because specific environmental conditions are required to create a fossil. Fortey explains fossil formation:

All fossils are found in rocks that were originally unconsolidated sediments... Certain environments which today support a rich and varied plant and animal life have no sediments forming in them, and the organisms living there have virtually no chance of being preserved in the fossil record. Mountainous regions, for example, are dominated by the erosion of the rock forming the ranges, and therefore no permanent sediment is formed there. Torrential rain and rapid weathering, aided in some climates by the action of frost, rapidly destroys much of the organic material: the chances of any preservable remains reaching a lowland river where permanent sediment is accumulating are remote. The faunas and floras of mountainous regions of the past are most unlikely to be represented in the fossil record. The fossilization potential of a mountainous environment is low. [Fortey 1991]

Thus, where the deposition of undisturbed sediment dominates, fossils may form. Where erosion dominates, such as the montane, fossils rarely form. Suspending disbelief momentarily, of the sightings deemed credible by TBRP, most are in the montane environment. Asian reports, such as the so-called Yeti of the Himalayas, are from a similar environment. If these are sightings of an uncataloged animal, then such an environment would rarely produce a fossil.

When the environment of an animal is restricted to a sufficiently small region, and if this region does not support fossil formation, a gap in the fossil record of an animal may form.

The fossil record of ape evolution is confined almost entirely to the Miocene epoch, from 23 million to 5 million years ago... Ape lineages did persist into the Plio-Pleistocene, although some subsequently became extinct. All these surviving lineages were probably more widespread than they were today. However, their record after about 8 million years ago includes only scanty remains of a recently extinct giant ape (Gigantopithecus) and Pliocene fossils of uncertain affinity, all from southeastern Asia. There is no fossil record of chimpanzees or gorillas at all. [Jones 1992]

Science accepts the existence of the gorilla and chimpanzee through the observation of type specimens even though there is no fossil record. As a single dimension, the lack of fossil evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of an animal's non-existence.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Correa, what is the one under the Minnesota Ice Man...

I remember that one being discussed on BFF. If I recall, it's a thermal image and the subject is much brighter than shown in that collage. I can't find the specific thread about it, but it may be one from Stan Courtney.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by tsig

I like how you can read BF's mind and know aspects of their culture. Did you gain this knowledge by living among them or did some Indian tracker tell you?

How does the "enemy" call differ from the "friend" call? If we knew this we could go in the forest and call them in.

What...? I routinely use the words "might" and "may" and "guess" and "conjecture" to avoid exactly this kind of overreaching criticism. I conjectured that if such creatures exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of human beings might be calls or "warning" behavior similar to known and documented primate calls and behaviors, which alert other members of its social group to an enemy presence or approach.

I don't "know" anything about them, and I've never met an Indian tracker. Does that answer your question?

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

If I remember correctly a forest fire forced it out of the woods and it was seen by some helicopter pilots who were afraid of losing their jobs so the didn't report it.

But if they didn't report it due to fear how would we possibly know...

Oh it's all so pointless to pretend there is any logic to any of it.

[Correa Neto]

Vort, don't worry, I will not use an argument on authority. But before writing anything, I must ask-

Have you checked my posts on this issue as I suggested?

You should know that many of the questions you presented are answered there.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Think outside the box? Aren't avoiding humans? What does that remind me of?

Oh yes! The MABRC trip out the sasquatches and get ambushed by four of them video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXRRkawM9s

YIKES!

Darkwing takes flight and No Mercy finds mercy.

ROFL! I've never seen that video before. I'm guessing the BF's mistook the plastic toy sound as a plaintive moan calling them to an orgy?

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

A population of 200 individuals would be a genetic bottleneck, be teetering on extinction, and could not account for the sightings as reported. Look at this BFRO Texas report map:

http://bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=tx#map

A giant beast living in vialble breeding numbers so close to Dallas is not going to escape being filmed. People live and work in those areas. The TBRC has had cameras in those areas like Big Thicket for years and no Bigfoot.

I'll repeat my earlier observation that not all reported sightings need to be true in order for some to be possibly true, or to inspire investigation into the origins of the phenomenon. I have serious doubts about the Lake Worth creature and indeed, all other sightings in Texas. The gray-haired anthropologist lady with glasses (whose name I've forgotten) who did the "Ask Science" presentation threw out the "200" number when I've routinely heard 2000 from other sources.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

If Patty was a Bigfoot, she wasn't a Gigantopithecus. Her jaw is no match for Giganto. We have Giganto jaws to look at and they're huge. Patty doesn't compare in that regard. Also Giganto most likely ate largely bamboo with some fruits like jackfruit and durian. This is going to greatly affect their behaviour.

The last known Giganto. fossil dates from about 300,000 ya. Natural selection would of course have continued during that time, perhaps producing a "Patty"-like animal with morphology adapted to bipedal locomotion and a smaller jaw than that formerly necessary for a foliovorous diet. I'm not suggesting that "Patty" is definitely one such animal (you know my reservations about "her"), simply that such an animal as I've described might conjecturally exist.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Remember, gorillas need around 9000 calories a day. Where is a viable breeding population of sasquatches getting the well over 9000 calories it needs in a day in Big Thicket, Texas, while never appearing on one of the many game trails in the area?

That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

But if they're like orangutans like you mention, they're going to be found. From orangs to the newly described Bili apes, apes are inquisitive animals. Orangs will often approach humans. Young orang males are notorious for their bad behaviour and the way in which they will harrass female orangs. If they're living in numbers enough to be making danger calls to one another when humans approach, it wouldn't matter if they learned to mimic "I've got a gun and I'll shoot!" They're still going to be found.

They might be related to orangs, but that does not perforce mean that all of their behaviors are going to be exactly like orangs. Humans and chimps have very different sets of behaviors, despite our close kinship. I propose the danger call as one possible means of human avoidance; perhaps it's used among the single-female-with-young groups, of whom there are fewer reported sightings, while the solitary males have no such warning system, leading to their more frequent reported sightings. This is all conjecture on my part, a kind of educated guessing game.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

No, this part doesn't work. I mentioned this in another thread. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. 2/3 outside the PNW and plenty of archaeology in the PNW with fossil finds. We have bones for everything else currently maintaining breeding populations there, why not one of the biggest. You should definitely read Correa's posts on this.

Will do. I don't understand how British paleontologist Richard Fortey could be so ignorant and mistaken in his own field, but apparently the question merits closer examination on my part.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Did Bigfoot learn with the assistance of the Shaman of the Whills the Jedi art of becoming force ghosts upon death? That would make more sense almost!

"Abuse the Farce, Fluke!" If there are Jedi bigfoot, I wonder if there are Sith bigfoot as well? This could be the next area ripe for study! Darth Sasquatch: Misunderstood Misanthrope, or Tragic Hero of the Bigfoot Wars? YOU be the judge.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Vort, don't worry, I will not use an argument on authority. But before writing anything, I must ask-

Have you checked my posts on this issue as I suggested?

You should know that many of the questions you presented are answered there.

I'll look into your posts on the subject today. Thank you for the suggestion!

[Ashles]

I think I'm starting to see the obsession/addiction to Bigfoot threads.

It's like being a moth and encountering a fearsomely bright light of stupidity.
You know it will burn, but how can you stay away?

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.

You are so close!!! Bears, wolves, and bigfoot all need to eat a lot of food everyday in order to survive. Bears and wolves are seen, photographed, captured, studied, tracked, have their carcasses found, and hunted on a regular basis. Why isn't bigfoot even photographed once?

Bigfoot does not exist