• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correa Neto said:
Have you learned the differences between soil and sediments?
And that fossils are preserved in sediments instead of soils?
Click to expand...

My point is that acid soils will eat even teeth long before they can be buried in sediments (barring landsides). Is there some way I can make that clearer? Rapid burial is a requirement for fossilization. Gradual sedimentation doesn't cut it.

The top layer in forest is detrius, which decays to form acid soil.

Read my post and you'll see some possibilities of how land animals can be fossilized.
Click to expand...

I know how it works. Not only do conditions have to be right for fossilization to occur, the fossil has to be protected from pulverization and then found by someone after it's exposed before it can erode away.

Are there any late Pleistocene fossil beds with preserved remains of forest dwellers in any of the wet, mountainous regions of NA?

Why are there no Gorilla fossils?

OH, BTW, from your own link
(http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...ossilation.htm)
:
Click to expand...

Page cannot be found.

Why have so many species left no fossil record at all? I hope you're not saying every animal that dies by a lake gets fossilized.

Compare with what I wrote.

Have you forgotten the links I once posted on fossil remains at lava tubes?
Click to expand...

The fossils were found in sand dunes, not lava tubes.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2000/00_01_20.html

I neglected to state I meant in the Cascades. The lava tubes in the Gifford Pinchot are in what may be prime Sasquatch territory, but I know of no fossils of any kind being found in them. Might the Cascades be considerably wetter than the Galapogos? Is anyone claiming Sasquatches live in the Galapogos?

http://www.carolina.com/owls/galapagos.asp

It says fragmented bones were found, not fossilized bones. The rare find of fossils in igneous rocks were trees, evidently with high moisture content allowing their preservation.

http://www.nps.gov/crmo/naturescience/fossils.htm


Now, once again:
Bigfeet -if they are real and if the geographical distribution of sighting records is worth of anything- are not restricted to PNW. You are aware of this, aren't you? So, there are lots of potential sites all over North America...
Click to expand...

I've never agreed with you on that. They seem to be restricted to forests, usually in mountainous regions. Individuals sighted outside such an environment haven't been far from one.

Do you remember what I posted on forests being more northerly and clumps of trees growing on the Bering Land Bridge when it was a thousand miles wide?

And I am the one who didn't learn a thing...
Click to expand...

Yep. And the wronger you are, the more condescending you get. ;)
 
LAL said:
Why do you think researchers are so secretive about the locations of their research areas?
Click to expand...

I give up... why? Is it because they want to become millionaires instead of someone else?

Huntster suggested a rapid response team as part of the funded search which would quickly survey an area that had a sighting. A hoaxer could lure the team like mice to cheese. Make a fake trackway, call in a sighting in the vicinity and sit back as the task force goes into action. Hot diggety!
 
LAL said:
Evidently it is. How U shaped do the jaws look in the photos? See pg. 8:

http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol223/lectures/human_evolution_overview.pdf

They're upper jaws, but you get the idea. See pg. 21 here:

http://www.bio.utexas.edu/courses/kalthoff/bio346/PDF/PowerPoints/02Pres.pdf
Click to expand...
I certainly does seem to be mixed up. The Giganto mandibles are clearly 'V' shaped. However, I don't think 'V' shaped and the paraboloid given for humans are synonymous.

Oddly, I now find myself wondering if the reduction of canine and incisor teeth in humans is a reflection of the use of stone tools for the cutting of meat then what is supposed to account for the reduction of Giganto's canines?
 
Just like a panda's dentition is reduced relative to a grizzly's, so too is Gigantopithecus's dentition reduced relative to an orangutan. Ditto the narrow front of the jaw. Same as in a panda. Probably an adaptation to eating bamboo and lesser amounts of other vegetation and small prey. No one would seriously argue that pandas are bipedal though...
 
So with the holidays over, I've been pondering how nice it'd be to have a few extra bucks in the bank. Does anyone remember John Green's challenge to the world that he'd pay $10,000.00 to anyone who could reproduce X-hundred BF tracks in a dusty road within a couple of hours? As I recall, the most impressive thing to Green was the depth of the tracks he'd seen, yet photos I've seen of the 1967 Bluff Creek prints alongside bootprints show them being about the same depth. Is that challenge still open? And if so, who exactly is going to evaluate the tracks? Green himself? Possibly another Bigfoot "expert"? I'm also curious about who's coughing up the 10 grand. If anyone knows more of this, maybe yuo could enlighten the forum?
 
A funded search for Bigfoot will of course be preceded by a funder agreeing that the already presented secondary evidence justifies the project. If they hesitate, one might want to raise the issue of public safety.

Injuries and deaths attributed to Bigfoot.

Bigfoot is not generally regarded as dangerous to people, but unless these claimants were spectacularly wrong or lying... Bigfoot is potentially very dangerous. Should the funded trackers wear helmets in anticipation of big flying rocks?
 
First let's figure out if anyone claiming to be a Bigfoot tracker can actually discern between "real" and forged prints. Then we can get into whether they need helmets, or knee pads, or full-body condoms, etc.
 
Forget that noise, DY. We already know that folks can't decide if a footprint is BF or a hoax. Step 2 (the funded search) will never come if we keep lollygagging. I think Huntster is saying that society needs to show maturity by putting those questions aside and just getting on with the hunt. Time's a wastin' in the quest to understand and (possibly) protect this majestic creature (stink and all).

When the trackers find whopper tracks they can't waste time convening some peer review to determine if they are real. The trail grows colder with each passing minute. The whole operation is based on rapid response as a key to confirmation.

When the trackers find footprints, somebody(s) has to hurry forwards to catch BF even before a determination can be made on the prints. A guy(s) stays behind to poke around the found prints and if he decides they are fake he radios the active tracker to call it off. "Code Mickeytoodle! Yep Bart, you can stop your stalking and come on back to Base 9. Over."

Later on during the daily debriefing....

"I sure wish we would get us a Bigfoot. I'm starting to get disillusioned."
"Keep your chin up, Bart. Remember what the boss said yesterday... You can't be skeptical and catch a Bigfoot all in the same day."
 
William Parcher said:
I give up... why? Is it because they want to become millionaires instead of someone else?
Click to expand...

To prevent anyone from laying down phony evidence and then claiming hoax. Who's going to make any of them millionaires?
 
desertyeti said:
So with the holidays over, I've been pondering how nice it'd be to have a few extra bucks in the bank. Does anyone remember John Green's challenge to the world that he'd pay $10,000.00 to anyone who could reproduce X-hundred BF tracks in a dusty road within a couple of hours? As I recall, the most impressive thing to Green was the depth of the tracks he'd seen, yet photos I've seen of the 1967 Bluff Creek prints alongside bootprints show them being about the same depth. Is that challenge still open? And if so, who exactly is going to evaluate the tracks? Green himself? Possibly another Bigfoot "expert"? I'm also curious about who's coughing up the 10 grand. If anyone knows more of this, maybe yuo could enlighten the forum?
Click to expand...

It's $100,000, not $10,000. The challenge still stands as far as I know. It's through the The Willow Creek-China Flat Museum.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/reward.html

If Green's "coughing it up", like Randi's, his money has never been safer.

Page 16, The Best of Sasquatch Bigfoot:
 

Attachments

  • img073.jpg
    img073.jpg
    115 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
LAL said:
To prevent anyone from laying down phony evidence and then claiming hoax.
Click to expand...

They should already know the difference between something real and a hoax. After all, if they are researching a "hotspot" they have already determined that the secondary evidence that sent them there was legit, right? Are these guys weak at spotting hoaxes?

Who's going to make any of them millionaires?
Click to expand...

Maybe the McDonald's Corporation. Mickey D's is the reason why the Field Museum has the most complete T. rex skeleton (fossil) in the world. It's called "Sue". It was purchased at a Sotheby's auction for about $8 million. McD's footed much of the bill. It was apparent that Sue could be purchased at auction by a private individual and then not be available for scientific research. I think McD's was determined to not let that happen.

Sue is one of many T. rexs in museums and other institutions. But she is pretty special because of her completeness (we learned they had "wishbones" because of her) and relatively decent condition. Her skull was crushed, but has been reconstructed as a scale model.

But a Bigfoot body would be one-of-a-kind and of such an extraordinary scientific and cultural significance - that a T.rex is hard to compare. So what would a Bigfoot body bring at Sotheby's when McDonald's is sitting there with a bidding paddle? Since it has taken "forever" to bag the first one - who knows how long it will take for the 2nd body? The Burgermeister won't hesitate.

If you can't sell the body you can still sell the story of your successful hunt. Bang... you're a millionaire!
 
William Parcher said:
They should already know the difference between something real and a hoax. After all, if they are researching a "hotspot" they have already determined that the secondary evidence that sent them there was legit, right? Are these guys weak at spotting hoaxes?
Click to expand...

It's to keep anyone from trying to discredit what they do find. Rick Noll has explained all this; I wish you guys would read my links.

Paul Freeman spent $50,000 on his quest and earned a couple of thousand from an ice cream commercial. Nobody's getting rich at this.
 
LAL said:
It's to keep anyone from trying to discredit what they do find. Rick Noll has explained all this; I wish you guys would read my links.
Click to expand...

How do you discredit a 9 foot tall stinking ape? You either confirm it or you don't.

Paul Freeman spent $50,000 on his quest and earned a couple of thousand from an ice cream commercial. Nobody's getting rich at this.
Click to expand...

Everything changes when he confirms Bigfoot. He will be rolling in cash after that.
 
William Parcher said:
How do you discredit a 9 foot tall stinking ape? You either confirm it or you don't.
Click to expand...

The fact that the Skookum Expedition location was top secret helped rule out the possibility of a hoaxed imprint (8', not 9', in that case).

Peter Byrne once discovered miles of trackway in snow when he himself didn't know where he was going. How would a hoaxer have known where to put them, assuming such trackways can be faked in the first place?

Everything changes when he confirms Bigfoot. He will be rolling in cash after that.
Click to expand...

He's dead.
 
kitakaze said:
In any event, Ciochon and colleagues (1990) conclude it likely that Gigantopithecus had a very broad diet, that nonetheless included bamboo as a staple.
Click to expand...

In Alaska, the "ferocious" coastal brown bear is primarily a grazer and fish eater.

I wonder if "Ciochon and colleagues" could have gotten that right with a mere dental examination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom