Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Huntster]

....What he should be admonished for is ignoring questions....and refusing to elaborate on and explain what he says in his posts....because that's NOT how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.
It's how they play games.

No need to admonish him.

LAL has it right; just ignore the fool.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Sightings and footprints!

Shall we suggest a werewolf research project funded by the government?

Well...here are two posts from a werewolf discussion board:

http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14276&page=2&pp=10

First, the smart guy's post...

I have lost all faith in our school systems.

And no, werewolves DON'T exist. Bigfoot, maybe; Nessie, good chance; Rob Snider getting into another movie without Adam Sandler; doubt it.

See, its all about realism. Think about it, were would you get the material to form yourself into a wolf-like creature. Now, if there were an an animal that morphs into a larger creature over an amount of time... Wait, insects do that. And as far as I know, there are no wolves or humans related to insects, so that is out the window and down the street.

Next, the not-so-smart guy's post...

well if bigfoot and nessie might be real why not wolves for all we now some human somewere( like in the 19th or earlier centurys) could of easliy took wolf dna and morphed in with human dna or there own and made one like that.or it could have naturaly been born in the world somewere not nessacary by were poeple live but in the woods or abandoned places you always have to open your mind to the possibilitys and not just reality.

Yeah...some guy could have easily done that. First...you take the wolf's dna, and you sort of mash it up into a kindof a powder.....and....ummm....well....I'll get back to you on the rest of the process later.

There is no REAL discussion of "werewolf evidence", because there is either no, or precious little, evidence of werewolve's existence out there.

On the other hand...there is plenty of evidence for Bigfoot's existence.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hunster wrote:

LAL has it right; just ignore the fool.

So well...and simply...put, Hunster!!

 

[LAL]

It's a simple fact. I don't mind it being mentioned.

It says in thi guidelines they encourage people to disagree with them, but I think one does so at one's peril, especially when they haven't become mods yet.

I was told the decision was unanimous, but another mod I talked to didn't even know about it.

They wanted to get rid of "troublemakers", but IMO they might have started with a look at the new mods and old admins. Good help is hard to find.

 

[carcharodon]

*sigh* Yes, carcharodon Diogenes should surely be admonished for this post:...OK, uh Diogenes- No pointing out a member's been banned on another board after they begin badgering you incessantly on this board.

Well Kitakaze, what is the real difference between that and two posters going "hmmmmmm, ok I see, thanks"??

Can you please (pretty please with sugar on top) tell me what is so outrageous in giving thanks to a fellow member who merely pointed out another member's profession? I mean, you seemed to get your knickers in a twist over it and deemed it inappropriate (hell, even the poster in question...Tube...didn't seem to give a damn), so what exactly is your problem?? What has it got to do with YOU and who exactly appointed YOU as the thought police?

Now, maybe you might be so kind, carcharodon, as to point me to where either lampmaker Tube or babbling, libelous Desert Yeti was engaging in gossip concerning Noll and his toys

It's here somewhere. Look for yourself. It was either Tube or Desert Yeti. Apologies to the person it wasn't. It was one or the other. One of them made the remark and I am sure the person who made the remark would not deny it. Doesn't bother me one little bit though. I do not take umbrage at it. Personally I did not consider it a problem.........until some interfering old busy body (that's YOU) comes along and starts throwing accusations of gossip and pointing the finger in one direction whilst ignoring the other.

Get it? Best if you kept quiet and didn't play favourites hey? Or if you did really want to be the thought police you could have at least been consistent and shared your advice all around on both sides of the debate.

so that I may similarly show disaproval. Surely out of those three people you listed it wasn't only Diogenes you were sure of, right?

No, it was Diogenese plus one out of either Desert Yeti or Tube. Personally, I don't care what gossip or finger pointing they made. It was only because YOU saw fit to only pull ME up (on two seperate occassions) that I thought your input was a bit ridiculous.

Go choke if you dont like it.

 

[LAL]

Second, why Sanderson decided by a giant penguin, since the fakefeet were made based on recently-found dinosaur tracks?

There were reported sightings of a 12' penguin-like bird in the area. Tracks were found on a beach and the team put 2 + 2 together and got 5.

Never mind all the rest of Sanderson's work. This one blunder puts him on the s***list forever. Be sure to ignore the fact that he exposed the Jersey Devil (winged variety) real estate hoax.

Regarding Desert Yeti's paper, its actually an opportunity for Meldrum.

I agree. Meldrum's the one who cleaned the cast. According to the report by Fish, Randalls and Noll, there's unpublished data. It would be good to see it published.

But I would like to see the discussion published in a national magazine as well rather than just in an obscure little journal with a hefty price tag.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1042-0940&linktype=rates

National Geographic was open-minded enough to give us this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

Think they'd take on the challenge?

 

[LAL]

It's here somewhere. Look for yourself. It was either Tube or Desert Yeti.

It was RayG. He also called SY a troll.

 

[carcharodon]

It was RayG. He also called SY a troll.

Was it? I could not find the post again though I looked and looked. There are so many here. Thank you LAL.

I hereby offer a thousand apologies to both Desert Yeti and Tube for accusing either of 'gossip' concerning Rick Noll. I was completely wrong in fingering the two of them. I was wrong.

However, Kitekadze started the bitching...............so there.

 

[RayG]

It was RayG. He also called SY a troll.

And I stand by my opinion of Rick, he's demonstrated his temperamental side a number of times. You yourself pointed out that very behavior when you said "when Rick finally got fed up enough to pull his photography and depart". Others on the BFF have noticed similar results.

As for SY, labelling him a troll was indeed a tad unkind to trolls, since it's his habit to present grammatically ambiguous* sentences that's the real problem.

RayG

* A sentence is grammatically ambiguous when (1) it has a grammatical structure allowing it to be understood in more than one way and (2) it is not clear from the context which understanding is the intended one. -- Munson, Conway, and Black, The Elements of Reasoning, Fourth Edition, 2004 (page 179)

 

[carcharodon]

And I stand by my opinion of Rick, he's demonstrated his temperamental side a number of times. You yourself pointed out that very behavior when you said "when Rick finally got fed up enough to pull his photography and depart". Others on the BFF have noticed similar results.

As for SY, labelling him a troll was indeed a tad unkind to trolls, since it's his habit to present grammatically ambiguous* sentences that's the real problem.

RayG

Nothing wrong with your opinions. Point is, Kitekadze didn't pull you up on it, whereas he/she did others.

THAT'S the point.

 

[kitakaze]

carcharodon, this was for everybody:

I guess it's inevitable in these types of discussions but I want to emphatically point out the hazards of heralding/bemoaning someones wealth/lack of formal training or education when talking about bigfoot.

Very simply put, without anything substantial to offer as evidence to support BF's existence Ph.D's and amateurs aren't so far apart.

So far we've seen some stellar mistakes by the more educated and some great contributions by hobbyists.


Maybe tube has elsewhere earned some ire but I still think belittling his experimentations that he's sharing here as 'by a lampmaker' sucks.

Sorry, JMHO.

This was for you:

Respectfully, I think you are missing the core concept of my post. It may bug you (heck, I know it bugs me) but when it comes to bigfoot even nut-jobs like Beckjord can claim to know as much as Meldrum, Swindler, or Chilcutt. It's lame but it's true.

I can't stress enough how much I learned from considering the concept of filtration in regards to BF evidence. You can't sweep every 3, 4, and 6 toed track, every glowing red eyed, vanished in front of my eyes, UFO/orbs also seen in vicinity report under the rug because it doesn't fit your preconception of a sasquatch. Those things too are BF evidence.

As for you considering Tube's background 'interesting', IMO the word for that is 'gossip'.

As was this:

I'm not defending DY or making any disagreements with you at the moment but may I suggest on this internet forum you dial it down a notch and relax, carcharodon? Enjoy the debate, get into it, state your opinions vigourously but there's no need to get too worked up, is there? Huntster may have to start charging a 'bullspit' user fee.

Well Kitakaze, what is the real difference between that and two posters going "hmmmmmm, ok I see, thanks"??

Can you please (pretty please with sugar on top) tell me what is so outrageous in giving thanks to a fellow member who merely pointed out another member's profession? I mean, you seemed to get your knickers in a twist over it and deemed it inappropriate (hell, even the poster in question...Tube...didn't seem to give a damn), so what exactly is your problem?? What has it got to do with YOU and who exactly appointed YOU as the thought police?

It's here somewhere. Look for yourself. It was either Tube or Desert Yeti. Apologies to the person it wasn't. It was one or the other. One of them made the remark and I am sure the person who made the remark would not deny it. Doesn't bother me one little bit though. I do not take umbrage at it. Personally I did not consider it a problem.........until some interfering old busy body (that's YOU) comes along and starts throwing accusations of gossip and pointing the finger in one direction whilst ignoring the other.

Get it? Best if you kept quiet and didn't play favourites hey? Or if you did really want to be the thought police you could have at least been consistent and shared your advice all around on both sides of the debate.


No, it was Diogenese plus one out of either Desert Yeti or Tube. Personally, I don't care what gossip or finger pointing they made. It was only because YOU saw fit to only pull ME up (on two seperate occassions) that I thought your input was a bit ridiculous.

Go choke if you dont like it.

I did look it up and found that it was neither DY or Tube which was why I asked you to do the same. Thanks to LAL we know it was Ray and you apologized, fair enough. As you can see from my posts quoted here the 'thought police' and 'having my knickers in a twist' comment is IMO not so fair.

However , if I were to get my knickers in a twist it would be about the comments in your above quoted post that I have set in bold. Thankfully, my knickers remain untwisted though think once you've cooled off you may come to regret those comments. Or maybe not.

I'm sure it's of little matter to you but I think it's safe to say that you're another new member who's posts are best left disregarded.

 

[RayG]

....because that's NOT how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.

Can you elaborate, I want to ensure I understand that you understand how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.

Examples perhaps.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Here we go again... There's no need for the animal whose bones will be preserved at a cave to have ever utilized the cave when alive.

Remember how the remains of Gigantopithecus may have been carried to tha cave? Similar circunstances are present in other fossil examples, African hominds included.

Yep. Three jawbones, same cave, to represent a species that was very widespread and long-lived. And the actions of leopards caused an accumulation under the tree that fell into the fissuure. Just how often does that occur, even in Africa?

Then you could have non-mineralized bones...

Are conditions in Patagonia like the wet, acid PNW, the Ohio Valley or western North Carolina?

I know of no fossil hunters poking around the igneous rocks of the Cascade range (there was some Mississipian formation on top of Table Mountain, though). We had bottle hunters.

One more time, even if teeth survive the scavenger system, lying on acid soil in an oxydizing environment is not really conducive to fossilization.

Even fresh bones of the abundant deer are seldom found. Antlers are shed yearly, but they don't get preserved either, except perhaps over hunters' fireplaces.

Remember also the recent works with neanderthal DNA.

??? There are Neandertal bones. Neandertals seemed to like caves.

As I said before, you can keep presenting reasons to explain why there are no bigfoot fossil remains and I can keep on explaining why there could be.

I'm not saying there couldn't be; I'm saying it's extremely unlikely given the preferred habitat. And, they'd have to be found.

Fossils of any kind of forest-dweller are extremely rare. By some estimates, only 1% of all species that have lived have left a fossil record. We have a very rare hominid here, living in an environment, with black bear. Even bear fossils are very rare (from the first website you posted on that). Krantz suggested there are 100 bear for very sas, so, if sas fossils, if any, are 100 times rarer than bear fossils, that pretty well gets it down to nothing.

Not all peat bogs yield fossils, BTW. My uncle sold everything out of the peat bog on my grandfather's farm and nothing was found but peat.

However, this will not change the fact that the fossil register does not back the claim of a North-American giant bipedal ape that coehxists(ed) with humans.

Oh, just found this:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~palanth/susy_files/cote_2004.pdf
Possible gorilla fossil (canine tooth) at Uganda (Nkondo, 5-6Ma).

Yes, they are very rare (the paper states this clearly). But they have been found.

After half a century of digs in Africa a Gorilla tooth was possibly found? I'm impressed. Where are the bones?

The Chimpanzee teeth were found in an unexpected area. Some extinct species of Great Apes may have exploited a different environment than their relatives do today.

Red pandas are forest-dwelling critters, aren't they?

They are now; they're almost extinct.

"Habitat || Red Pandas are found in the temperate forests of the Himalayas and some high mountain areas of China and Myanmar (Burma)."

http://www.wellingtonzoo.com/animals/animals/mammals/panda.html

They must have been quite widespread and numerous to leave 3-4 million year old teeth in NA. Where are the rest?

Ah, a new species in Tennessee, complete with bone fragments:

"Scientists find 2nd red panda fossil specimen (Tennessee)
Gray, Tennessee - Scientists uncovered a second fossil of a red panda species first discovered at the Gray Fossil Site two years ago. Researchers from East Tennessee State University found a lower jawbone from a red panda of the species Pristinailurus bristoli last week.

'The nice thing about it is that it's confirmation,' Dr. Steven Wallace (homepage), ETSU's lead paleontologist at the site, said Wednesday. 'You hate to have a one-shot wonder.'

The species was discovered in January 2004 when ETSU researchers found a panda tooth and other skeletal fragments. Only the second panda fossil found on the continent, the remains turned out to be a previously unknown species in the red panda family."
-------
http://evomech1.blogspot.com/2006/09/scientists-find-2nd-red-panda-fossil.html

Helps to have a fossil site and a team, doesn't it?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Red-Panda-Discovered-in-North-America-36383.shtml
Forest-dwelling and from Washington state...
OK, its not Pleistocene, but shows a forest-dwelling animal at PNW had its remains preserved.

Were conditions perhaps a little different in Washington State 3-4 mya?

Just like mountain goats (rememebr the Academic Google link I posted?). And that the remains of forest-dwelling animals may be preserved. And later found.

Since when are Mountain Goats forest dwellers?

Again,

As I said before, you can keep presenting reasons to explain why there are no bigfoot fossil remains and I can keep on explaining why there could be. However, this will not change the fact that the fossil register does not back the claim of a North-American giant bipedal ape that coehxists(ed) with humans.

A template for the myth if it was brought from Asia with the ancestors of the current Native American populations? Maybe.

But the actual animal? No backing.

Brought from Asia? It couldn't have migrated on its own?

Oh, I get it. Homo erectus coexisted with Gigantopithecus some 300,000 years ago, prior to the evolution of modern humans, therefore the early imigrants to NA brought Homo erectus' folk tales with them. Or wasn't that what you meant?

 

[LAL]

No need to admonish him.

LAL has it right; just ignore the fool.

And remember to unsubscribe from the thread.

 

[carcharodon]

I'm sure it's of little matter to you but I think it's safe to say that you're another new member who's posts are best left disregarded.

Then DON'T reply in the first place and don't try and be some kind of nit picker going through posts finding things to comment on.........which do not even concern YOU.

Ok?

 

[LAL]

I think you're doing a great job, "carchy".

Isn't it interesting how people on opposite sides of the globe can get into it? Ah, the electronic age.

 

[LAL]

And I stand by my opinion of Rick, he's demonstrated his temperamental side a number of times. You yourself pointed out that very behavior when you said "when Rick finally got fed up enough to pull his photography and depart". Others on the BFF have noticed similar results.

That would be you, BlackDog, JimF, PaulUK and who else? Rick was badgered. He was there to share and got.......Larry Lund. He came back that time.

We lost him and his invaluable photographs (John's too) and I'm thoroughly disqusted and saddened by the whole episode.

I'm sure he's better off away from it.

Didn't you deliver a lecture about name-calling and disrespect recently? How is it okay for you to do it?

 

[RayG]

That would be you, BlackDog, JimF, PaulUK and who else?

A few others who weren't quite as sympathetic as you'd like. I'm guessing some of them were those nasty people who supposedly made Rick feel like he was treated like dirt. You know, that group that were labelled by his supporters as bullies, bad apples, critics, thugs, poppy-choppers, and meanie heads. The ones who hurled venomous, disrespectful, rude, agressive comments, and the occasional bit of garbage, from the peanut gallery at him.

Rick was badgered.

Do you have some links/sources to support your assertion that Rick was needled, badgered, harassed, teased, bullied, or tormented? And I'll ask again, what bickering do you mean? (be specific now)

Didn't you deliver a lecture about name-calling and disrespect recently? How is it okay for you to do it?

Yes, I've spoken out against name-calling a number of times, and no, it wasn't ok for me to stoop to the same level as your bandwagon buddies (the ones that seem to think Rick's poo don't stink, he walks on water, he's the great and almighty guru of bigfoot knowledge, and he never makes mistakes). I even retracted my 'troll' accusation in an earlier thread, I guess you missed it. Was any effort to speak out against the name-calling in the thread you started on the BFF?

RayG

 

[LAL]

A few others who weren't quite as sympathetic as you'd like. I'm guessing some of them were those nasty people who supposedly made Rick feel like he was treated like dirt. You know, that group that were labelled by his supporters as bullies, bad apples, critics, thugs, poppy-choppers, and meanie heads. The ones who hurled venomous, disrespectful, rude, agressive comments, and the occasional bit of garbage, from the peanut gallery at him.

Do you have some links/sources to support your assertion that Rick was needled, badgered, harassed, teased, bullied, or tormented? And I'll ask again, what bickering do you mean? (be specific now)

RayG

I'm not going to bother posting links because you were in some of those discussions as were others I've named. Your needling has already been pointed out to you. Specifically, Rick referred to the bickering over the Fred Bradshaw (BD and JimF on a closed MD thread) business in a PM.

Yes, I've spoken out against name-calling a number of times, and no, it wasn't ok for me to stoop to the same level as your bandwagon buddies (the ones that seem to think Rick's poo don't stink, he walks on water, he's the great and almighty guru of bigfoot knowledge, and he never makes mistakes). I even retracted my 'troll' accusation in an earlier thread, I guess you missed it. Was any effort to speak out against the name-calling in the thread you started on the BFF?

You said it was unfair to trolls. Was that the retraction you mean? I find the above comments extremely offensive -" your bandwagon buddies (the ones that seem to think Rick's poo don't stink, he walks on water, he's the great and almighty guru of bigfoot knowledge)" - and are precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about.

If you mean the thread I started on his departure, it started out civilly enough, but I expected it to be closed much sooner than it was. I came out of the woodwork once again after people started calling it a wake and Paul made his "toys" remark. The thread was closed immediately thereafter. I was expecting a warning. I barely post on BFF anymore, but I still get PMs and e-mails from a couple of the mods. One apologized.

I guess it depends on which side you're on as to which one seems to be doing the most ridiculing and name calling. Apeman called the Official Skookum Cast thread "abusive"(to DY), but it looked to me like the abuse was coming from the elk-lay supporters.

It would be good if all that would stop, but we live in a real world and I don't think it will.

I think this who-called-whom-what as been done about to death now. Can we move on?

If not, there's plenty of room left on my filter list.

 

[Correa Neto]

Yep. Three jawbones, same cave, to represent a species that was very widespread and long-lived. And the actions of leopards caused an accumulation under the tree that fell into the fissuure. Just how often does that occur, even in Africa?

Still, the very processes I summarized were the ones responsible for the preservation of the remains. What means preservation is possible regardless of acid soils.

Know of any remains that could be attributed to a bigfoot?

If there are none, then the fossil register does no provide any backing to the claim "bigfeet are real animals".

Are conditions in Patagonia like the wet, acid PNW, the Ohio Valley or western North Carolina?

LAL, I was pointing out an example on how old remains can be preserved and not mineralized.

Again, the area where bigfeet remains potentially could be found if the animals are or were real is not restricted to PNW, so...

Aniway, not all parts of caves are wet. Inactive galleries (without flowing water - think of them as abandomned river beds) can be very dry. Example: I once found mummified remains of bats at an abandomned gallery of a quartzite cave. Besided being located at a tropical rainforest, the water flowing at this cave was very acid. And still, at the dry inactive gallery there were remains.

No, bigfeet are not bats and I have no idea if there are quartzite or sandstone caves at PNW. What I am pointing out is that remains, fossilized or not can be preserved, even in wet areas with acid soils or waters.

I know of no fossil hunters poking around the igneous rocks of the Cascade range (there was some Mississipian formation on top of Table Mountain, though). We had bottle hunters.

Oh, bigfeet are restricted to the areas of the Cascades composed by igneous rocks?

Here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...hl=pt-BR&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&oi=scholart
637 hits on Academic Google for Cascades+fossils+Pleistocene
Mixed material, I don't have time to do any further filtering, but there are referrences to 35Ky old sediments, sedimentation at peat bogs, laccustrine deposits dating from 36 to 19Ky, etc.

The Cascades, LAL, are part of a geotectonic province named Basin and Range. It can be described as composed by a number of overlapping sedimentary basins, created by long-lasting crustal extension. Basin formation and magmatism are occurring right now. You can go to http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g109/Geology/Geologic_Maps/usa_geology.htm for a quick review or make some Googling by yourself. You'll see its not entirely composed by igneous rocks, it also has sediments of several ages as well as older basement rocks.

One more time, even if teeth survive the scavenger system, lying on acid soil in an oxydizing environment is not really conducive to fossilization.

Even fresh bones of the abundant deer are seldom found. Antlers are shed yearly, but they don't get preserved either, except perhaps over hunters' fireplaces.

And yet one more time, they don't need to lie in acid soil, since fossils are preserved in sediments, not soil. Please check post 139 at this very thread and three lines below at this very post to see how it can happen.

??? There are Neandertal bones. Neandertals seemed to like caves.

You seem to have missed this part:

a) Animal dies for some reason at a forest. It rains, surficial run of water carries the carcass (usually parts of it) to a cave, calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.
b) Animal dies for some reason at a forest. Scavengers carry the carcass (usually parts of it) to a cave. Calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.
c) Predator kills animal at a forest and carries the carcass (or parts of it) to a cave. Calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.
d) Animal enters cave looking for shelter or water and dies there (it may be wounded, sick, weak, was lost inside the cave, broke a limb after falling, etc.). Calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.

They don't need to "like" caves for their remains end up there... They don't need to "like" lakes or river for their remains to be preserved at laccustrine or fluvial deposits.

I'm not saying there couldn't be; I'm saying it's extremely unlikely given the preferred habitat. And, they'd have to be found.

My points are:
1) May be unlikely but its not impossible, and the broader the geographic spanning of the species the more likely is that remains will be preserved;
2) The fossil record provides no backing to the claim "bigfeet are/were real animals".

Fossils of any kind of forest-dweller are extremely rare. By some estimates, only 1% of all species that have lived have left a fossil record. We have a very rare hominid here, living in an environment, with black bear. Even bear fossils are very rare (from the first website you posted on that).

Rare bear fossils, OK, but they do exist.
On the other hand, non-existent fossils can not provide any backing for the existence of bigfoot...

Krantz suggested there are 100 bear for very sas, so, if sas fossils, if any, are 100 times rarer than bear fossils, that pretty well gets it down to nothing.

This figure is quite often cited, among others. I can't help but wonder how they reached such an accurate figure and how reliable it is...

Not all peat bogs yield fossils, BTW. My uncle sold everything out of the peat bog on my grandfather's farm and nothing was found but peat.

Note that peat is composed by plant remains, preserved under acid and reducing conditions. Your uncle's peat bog proves my point that acid Ph is not an obstacle to the preservation of organic remains. Other peat bogs have animal remains. None (OK, as far as we know) has bigfoot remains.

After half a century of digs in Africa a Gorilla tooth was possibly found? I'm impressed. Where are the bones?

Well, there is a gorilla fossil. You said there were none.

Where are bigfeet remains?

Note that the "half a century of digs" in Africa by no means correlate to the same period of "digs" in North America. Much more "digging" was carried out a North America, since it has better infrastructure and more professionals. Thus its quite likely better known than Africa.

They are now; they're almost extinct.

"Habitat || Red Pandas are found in the temperate forests of the Himalayas and some high mountain areas of China and Myanmar (Burma)."

http://www.wellingtonzoo.com/animals/animals/mammals/panda.html

They must have been quite widespread and numerous to leave 3-4 million year old teeth in NA. Where are the rest?

Well, where are the bigfeet remains?

My point is that its an example of a forest-dwelling animal that left its fossils at PNW... So, its not impossible, its not far-fetched.

Since when are Mountain Goats forest dwellers?

They are mountain dwellers, at the winter most of them migrate to areas below the tree lines (http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/mtn_goat.php) and the most important of all: their fossil remains were found (check the Academic Google link I posted before).

Thus they provide an example of preserved remains of animals that live at mountainous terrains at the PNW.

Not that this is actually important when it comes to bigfoot, since they are reported at a wide variety of terrains and the fossil records does not provide any backing to their existence as real creatures...

Brought from Asia? It couldn't have migrated on its own?

"Migrated"? No. Expanded its habitat, maybe, if between their starting and ending points the habitats were suitable for it.

But there are no reliable evidences if this. Gigantopithecus fossils sites distribution provide no backing to this idea.

Oh, I get it. Homo erectus coexisted with Gigantopithecus some 300,000 years ago, prior to the evolution of modern humans, therefore the early imigrants to NA brought Homo erectus' folk tales with them. Or wasn't that what you meant?

And I am the one who distorts other poster's words...

Please check the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173058&postcount=4989

To be fair, it is actually possible that sasquatch myth started with Gigantopithecus.

Recently I read an article about ancient constellations, and it seems the Ursa Majoris is present in some Asiatic and North American myths. Its possible that the interpretation of the pattern created by those stars as a bear was carried to the new world by migrating tribes and survived untill nowdays.

It is, thus, possible that if Gigantopithecus cohexisted with some of those tribes in Asia before their migration, the recollections of the animals were stored and preserved as myth.

But this depends on a number of big "ifs". For example:

-We know they cohexisted with Homo erectus, but we don't have reliable evidence of their cohexistence with Homo sapiens.
-We are not sure the hairy bipeds from the forests were actually based in Gigantopithecus since there are similar legends all around the world, their origin might possibly be rooted in our psichology.
-There were many fabulous beasts in the megafauna -North America included. Why they are not also present at the mythology? This raises an issue when it comes to the preservation of their memory.
-The similaritude of the Ursa Majoris myths may as well be a coincidence, since the stars that compose it are quite easy to spot. Other cultures, for example, call it the wheelchart.

This, however, is still a far cry from providing actual backing to the current bigfoot myths.

And
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2216728&postcount=130

On the candidates for a bigfoot template...

(A) Gigantopithecus
Pros:
-About the required size
Cons:
-No evidence they ever lived in North America
-Chances are they were knuckle walkers
-The avaliable reconstructions do not look like Patty
-The avaliable evidence points to a specialized herbivore diet, instead the "generalistic opportunistic" diet inferred for bigfeet
-Avaliable evidence indicates they became extinct 200Ky ago.
Sources:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/PNAS...to-Vietnam.pdf

(B) Paranthropus ("robustus" australopithecines)
Pros:
-Bipedal
-Avaliable reconstructions are not very different from some bigfoot renderings
Cons:
-Avaliable evidence indicates they were restricted to Africa
-Avaliable evidence indicated they were extincted 1My ago
-They were only 1.4 m tall
-Avaliable evidence indicates boisei were mainly herbivoral, instead the omnivore/opportunistic feeding habits bigfeet allegedly have; recent studies indicate, however, that robustus probably were omnivores
-Doesn't look like Patty
Sources:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/paranthro.shtml
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/bos.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/boisei.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/paranthropus-robustus
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/homo.html
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...usrobustus.htm
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...ecusboisei.htm
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...ethiopicus.htm

(C)Meganthropus
Pros:
-May have been about the required size
-May have coehxisted with Homo sapiens
-Possibly omnivore/opportunistic
Cons:
-Restricted to Asia
-Reconstructions of Homo erectus (they are regarded as possibly being a subspecies from H. erectus) does not look at all like most bigfoot renderings or Patty
-The species is controversial
-The largest size estimates (2.4 to 2.7 meters) are taken nowdays as probably exagerated. Note: if the average H. Sapiens were say, 1.7m tall, a 1.8 to 1.9 m tall H. erectus would be a giant for them...
-May be 0.6 My older than H. erectus

Sources:
http://www.answers.com/topic/meganthropus
http://www.springerlink.com/content/664230u49412345h/
http://ijh.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.26/prod.298
http://bioanth.anth.ubc.ca/documents...lard_1999b.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm


Notes:
-Many consider the genus Paranthropus is polyphyletic and invalid, its species actually belonging to the Australopithecus genus.
-The name Meganthropus africanus was initially used for a A. robustus specimen; this probably is the source of Coleman's mistaken claim that A. robustus were about the same size bigfeet are alleged to be.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...usrobustus.htm
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...ecusboisei.htm
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...ethiopicus.htm
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo...-paranthropus/


I see more cons than pros for all the candidates...

And remember:
If its not bipedal, 2 to 3m tall, matches the most common bigfoot renderings or Patty and coehxists(ed) in North America with humans, its not bigfoot...