• 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.

hominids

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

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

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

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

We all know who's the most powerfull Force user- Jar Jar Binks. Its the only way to explain its survival.
 
Last edited:
Kitz, try putting up a large alpha male silverback against a bear. The silverback would give the bear a hard time
 
Okay, before this degenerates into "40 Cambodian midgets vs. a lion" can I point out that was settled nearly 4 years ago?
 
Kitz, try putting up a large alpha male silverback against a bear. The silverback would give the bear a hard time

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

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

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

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

That gorilla encountering a full-grown grizzly like the ones I showed you would make more poopies than the bears ever could and run for their lives. If they didn't, they would make a rather big bear snack. Grizzlies have big snacks all the time.
 
And that's just current predators. Don't forget that in order for BF to exist, he'd have to have survived since, oh, let's say the end of glaciation at the least. So, the short-faced bear and the "dire wolf" come into play; the buffalo wolves, for those that crossed the Great Plains (on their way to Georgia); plus early North American Man. I would expect that, if Bigfoot existed, we'd see bits of BF bones in the middens: Those long, thick bones would be great for tool-making, for example!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One gets the sense that you really don't want to be amenable to factual information and are clinging onto irrational Bigfoot beliefs in the face of information, evidences, and proofs to the contrary.
 
No, kitz, im aware you sent me links. When the cougar was mentioned, was anyone aware those big cats are found in crowded areas after weeks and weeks of searching?
 
I dont understand how an amateur search is qualified as a search. Wouldnt a full blown science expedition be qualified as a search
 
I dont understand how an amateur search is qualified as a search. Wouldnt a full blown science expedition be qualified as a search

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

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

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

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

Makaya, why haven't you addressed my question? I thought you wanted to learn! So do I. Help me, please. Where did you get the above information?
 
Makaya, once again I will advise you to be very carefull regarding some informations and reasonings available at bigfoot literature and sites.

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

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

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

Researcher: "Delete them! We're studying marmots. Our funding agency would yank us right of the field if they found out we're wasting our time on a previously unknown species!" :rolleyes:
 
Just a question (and my first post of 2009):
How reasonable is it that 8-10 foot tall hominids remain undetected by wildlife researchers and managers in even densley-populated areas of the country?
As a visual aid to what exactly an 8-10 foot tall hominid looks like, here's an image of a 5'6" tall woman to scale with an 8 foot tall and a 10 foot tall hominid.

The size is truly staggering.
Now just imagine something like that, with its necessarily huge caloric intake, evading any and all detection by wildlife officials (including a remarkable lack of huge dung piles).
I now return you to makaya235's "Yeah, but...what if..." routine...
 
Last edited:
Its good to periodicly post scaled pictures to illustrate the immense size of these alleged creatures.

Its hard to hide something like that.
 

Back
Top Bottom