Yes. One more time, teeth and bones don't tend to last long enough in wet, acidic soils to be buried in sediment, if any happens to be around.
...snip...
I don't think so. Fossilization is rare. Finding fossils is extremely chancey.
The very link you quoted again, as well as my posts talk about exactly the same processes, demonstrating how remains can be preserved.
Please re-read this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=139
And tell me if there are many differences.
Fossilization is chancey? Yes. Unlikely? Hardly.
There are fossils of gorillas and gigantopithecus, after all... Got any remain of a bigfoot?
The two reasons stated didn't impress you at all? Sasquatches aren't creatures of the windswept, barren Olympics anyway.
Nope, they didn't, since bigfeet's alleged habitat is much wider. Not to mention that since mountain goats may have been introduced there...
BTW, at post 660, you wrote:
The lower slopes of the Olympics are "bigfoot country". The annual precipitation at Hoh is 12-14 feet.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2256549&postcount=660
So, are the Olympics part of "bigfoot country" or not?
Just where do yo think they live? Deserts? Cornfields? Central Park?
There's a correlation with rainfall. Areas with over 20" annually tend to be forested and/or swampy.
Thus, they are not supposed to live only at PNW, but at a large area, actually over most of North America. And there are many areas where remains could be preserved, outside the PNW, if the creatures are real.
Where I actually think they live?
Given the avaliable evidence (or perhaps the lack of) and reasonings, I say chances are in the minds of those who think they are real...
Possible, not probable. You seem to be locating them where they'll fit your argument.
Nope.
In case of doubts, look at a bigfoot sighting distribution map and copare it with a geological map of North America. You can do the same with PNW.
And most of the preservation is of animals that weren't forest dwellers. How many actual beds closer to the PNW than Idaho did we find last time?
Bigfeet now are restricted to PNW? Wasn't there something about precipitation and sightings at the East?
BTW, have you checked my link to te geological map of PNW? As well as what I wrote on sedimentary basins at the Cascades and the basin-and-range province?
Got evidence they were?
10', according to Ciochon.
And?
See below and change the facial hair a little.
Are these the only changes needed?
All the coastal tribes have them in their traditions. Evidently they're not describing an Asian species that lived 300,000 years ago. If they became extinct then how would they be in anyone's tradition?
First of all, I would really like to see a link pointing to the veracity of the claim that "all coastal tribes have them in their traditions". One that is not related to bigfoot lore. I do want to take a look at the core, at the original myths. No interpretation by bigfoot experts or researchers. Only the original tale, and the older the better.
Second, to say the mythical beings are indeed based on real creatures is merely speculation and inerpretation of the myth.
Third, there is no need for any real creature to be a template for "hairy wildmen" myths.
You seem so sure. Why did people on two different continents come up with non-opposed thumbs?
Se below.
How many of these people came up with this? How the percentage of non-opposed thumbs compares with the opposing thumbs?
Why did people on different continents report similar UFOs and ghosts? Why people on different continents have similar myths?
Read Campbell.
One of Kathy Strain's projects (she's a state's archaeologist, BTW) is to get the traditions and their interpretations directly from the native people.
And the native people's traditions do actually talk about a giant primate? Or about an entity nowdays interpreted by some as a real creature, more specifically a giant primate?
Yes. Let's please not go through that again.
So, you already know the dangers of interpreting a myth within a cultural background different from its original one. As well the effects the interpreter's personal bias may create.
What about considering a similar thing might have happened with sasquatch myths when they were interpreted by bigfoot researchers?
Fairies, leprechauns, werewolves............There are, however, real ravens, real coyotes, and real bears. They talk in the legends. That doesn't make them any less real.
And despite bears, coyotes and ravens being real creatures, fairies, leprechauns and werevoles are not. Even tough several similar entities are present in several cultures, separated by long distances in time and space, many of these mythical beings are just mythical.
I've tried twice to watch his series on DVD and was so bored I couldn't get through the first installment. Not my thing.
I wonder what would be your reaction if I or anyone else here wrote the same thing about Krantz or LMS.
What's mythlike about "My daughter and I saw one cross the road and she said, "WTF was that?"
If you had read Campbell, you would know.
What's myth like about "My daughter and I saw a flying saucer crossing the sky and she said, "WTF was that?" or "My daughter and I saw an elemental being crossing the road and she said, "WTF was that?" or "My daughter and I felt the presence of a powerfull entity and she said, "WTF was that?"
The myth provides the template, with elements that will be used to interpretate the brief sighting of something crossing a road as a hairy human-like figure. And eventually later add details to it.
Follow this line of reasoning (myth interpretation) without the most basic knowledge of Campbell’s work is not wise. It’s one of the major flaws in many cryptozoology (as well as UFOlogy and other “ologies”) works.
Whose paper? Green's?
Do you have any idea how far back the stories go? How would Mrs.Chapman, who lived in a cabin in Canada, with no TV, Internet, radio, etc., manage to make up an animal that matches an unwritten description from the southeastern US in 1835?
So what? Myths on "hairy wildmen" are present in several cultures, they are even present at the Gilgamesh. Such templates -maybe even memes- are present in our cultures for a long time, and there is no reason to assume there must be any real unknown species at its root.
Read Campbell.
Green also noted a number of disimilarities, such as domestication.
What? Domestication?
Someone had a bigfoot pet?
And no specimen?
Amazing…
Yep. There are a couple of handprints that seem to confirm that, as well as witness descriptions.
This is another implausibility added to bigfoot's list IMHO.
Those handprints someone (Tube?) showed some pics? Those with short thumbs that may have been a hoax?
All avaliable bigfoot handprints show non-opposing thumbs?
The number of bigfoot sighting reports describing non-opposing thumbs is bigger enough (in statistic terms) than those describing opposing thumbs to allow such inference?
Patty has non-opposing thumbs?
How many known hominids have non-opposing thumbs?
I've posted the story of Hairy Man. That's Hoopa.
And the story actually talks about a
Gigantopithecus, a robust australopithecine or a meganthropus? Or it’s a story on a Hairy Man nowdays interpreted as being about one of those hominids?
Yep. Spotting an 8' creature should be easier than spotting a tooth on the forest floor.
Not if the tooth is from a given real creature but the 2.4m-high creature isn't real...
The claim was that evolutionists were trying to pass off Bigfoot as a missing link. It's all a hoax, therefore evolution didn't happen.
Who exactly were these "evolutionists"?
Well, apparently you didn't read it. Wasn't that what I inferred?
Wrong. I wrote my previous post before seeing your other post. Not everybody has enough free time for near-real time posting…
Again, please refrain from making some inferences on what I would or not do.
It's a good story. Peter Byrne tells it on Sasquatch Odyssey. Ever see it? Since he's the one responsible, he's either lying or telling the truth. Now which would sceptics choose?
First of all, let’s get the facts straight. He claims to have smuggled a finger of what’s alleged by some monks to be the finger of a yeti. Very scientific and ethic, don’t you think?
http://www.skookumquest.com/sasquatch/skookum_byrne.htm
Peter led Slick's Yeti efforts through 1960 turning up nothing but footprints and what possibly could have been a mummified Yeti finger they pilfered from a monastary. Actor Jimmy Stewart smuggled the finger out of India and brought it to England for scientific analysis after which Peter never saw it again.
http://www.sasquatchodyssey.com/diary.html
Byrne once bribed a Tibetan monk with a bottle of scotch…so he could get at the hand of a Yeti, locked away in a monastery. Having removed a finger, Byrne stayed up all night sewing on a replacement human finger. Later actor Jimmy Stewart, an acquaintance of Byrne’s smuggled the Yeti finger out of Nepal in his wife’s lingerie bag.
Now, AFAIK the finger vanished after having been sent for study. Its amazing how this sort of important evidence is claimed to have disappeared in similar circunstances, eh? A conspiracy to hide the truth that’s been going on since the 50’s?
Frankly, it’s the standard anedoctal evidence. Nothing can be (or was) checked. No major effort to follow it.
