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

[Vortigern99]

Excellent, vigorous discussion with some difficult-if-not-impossible arguments to surmount from both kitakaze and LONGTABBER. What we're left with is a species of animal which, if it exists:

1. Dwells in such remote areas and in such tiny numbers that a. it is unlikely that anyone would ever see it, effectively discounting all reported sightings, and b. it would lose biological viability within a generation.

2. Manages to acquire some 8000 - 12000 calories a day, without the olfactory sense, manual-claw dexterity, and pointed dentition which ursine species require to obtain such vast quantities of per diem nutrition.

3. Has developed the ability, unique among large primates, to become torpid or dormant during winter months, and furthermore to extract itself from said torpor within moments of sensing human approach.

4. Has an instinctual or enculturated fear of humans, when no known event or encounter would have reasonably engendered such fear.

5. Has senses and intelligence so acute it is able to avoid detection either by live humans or by human technological devices such as track plates and video cameras, routinely used by biologists even in remote wilderness.

6. Has left no traces of passage that can be either a. verified as belonging to an unknown, uncatalogued large mammal, or b. distinguished from the traces left by known, catalogued large mammals.

7. Is remarkably similar to accounts of demonstrably fictional animals in areas worldwide, such as Britain and the Himalayas, where no such animal could possibly sustain itself and/or avoid detection.

8. Given all the above factors, has such a thin margin of probability that its possibility of existence is roughly equivalent to that of chupacabras, alien visitation and modern aquatic dinosaurs.

Mark the page number and post number: This is the point at which, instead of saying "Bigfoot possibly could exist", I say instead: "Bigfoot very probably doesn't exist."

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Excellent, vigorous discussion with some difficult-if-not-impossible arguments to surmount from both kitakaze and LONGTABBER. What we're left with is a species of animal which, if it exists:

1. Dwells in such remote areas and in such tiny numbers that a. it is unlikely that anyone would ever see it, effectively discounting all reported sightings, and b. it would lose biological viability within a generation.

2. Manages to acquire some 8000 - 12000 calories a day, without the olfactory sense, manual-claw dexterity, and pointed dentition which ursine species require to obtain such vast quantities of per diem nutrition.

3. Has developed the ability, unique among large primates, to become torpid or dormant during winter months, and furthermore to extract itself from said torpor within moments of sensing human approach.

4. Has an instinctual or enculturated fear of humans, when no known event or encounter would have reasonably engendered such fear.

5. Has senses and intelligence so acute it is able to avoid detection either by live humans or by human technological devices such as track plates and video cameras, routinely used by biologists even in remote wilderness.

6. Has left no traces of passage that can be either a. verified as belonging to an unknown, uncatalogued large mammal, or b. distinguished from the traces left by known, catalogued large mammals.

7. Is remarkably similar to accounts of demonstrably fictional animals in areas worldwide, such as Britain and the Himalayas, where no such animal could possibly sustain itself and/or avoid detection.

8. Given all the above factors, has such a thin margin of probability that its possibility of existence is roughly equivalent to that of chupacabras, alien visitation and modern aquatic dinosaurs.

Mark the page number and post number: This is the point at which, instead of saying "Bigfoot possibly could exist", I say instead: "Bigfoot very probably doesn't exist."

Outstanding I think if you combine the 2, you will be right there with me.

It possibly does but probably doesnt.

 

[Vortigern99]

I would like to be able to add a word about a lack of fossil evidence, but I still find compelling Fortey's assessment of montane forest as an unlikelihood terrain to yield fossil remains. I cannot seem to find anything about correa neto's counter-arguments on this score, though both that member and kitakaze have assured me those posts exist. Am I using the search function incorrectly? It's very frustrating, as this is an important area of interest for me.

 

[kitakaze]

Excellent, vigorous discussion with some difficult-if-not-impossible arguments to surmount from both kitakaze and LONGTABBER. What we're left with is a species of animal which, if it exists:

(snip)

Mark the page number and post number: This is the point at which, instead of saying "Bigfoot possibly could exist", I say instead: "Bigfoot very probably doesn't exist."

Eeeeexcellent!



Welcome to the Dark Side!





A powerful skeptic, you will become...

Henceforth you shall be known as... Darth... Vortigern.

Rise...

 

[kitakaze]

I would like to be able to add a word about a lack of fossil evidence, but I still find compelling Fortey's assessment of montane forest as an unlikelihood terrain to yield fossil remains. I cannot seem to find anything about correa neto's counter-arguments on this score, though both that member and kitakaze have assured me those posts exist. Am I using the search function incorrectly? It's very frustrating, as this is an important area of interest for me.

You must not be using it correctly. Did you do the search as specified?

Search>Advanced Search>Keyword(s) Bigfoot fossil>Specified User Correa Neto> Show results as>posts

I got a pile of stuff. Here's one to start:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4042404&postcount=16016

LAL used to try contending this all the time and Correa would naturally being a geologist just own the situation. Try mostly for results in the 411 PGF.

 

[Vortigern99]

Kitakaze, thanks for welcoming me to the dark side... though I must say I prefer to think of skepticism as the light side, per Sagan's use of the term "Science as a Candle in the Dark" as a sub-title for his indescribably awesome and informative 1996 book, The Demon-Haunted World.

As to the fossil thing, using the recommended criteria yields me five threads, some of which have posts numbering in the thousands, and all of which are impossible to penetrate in search of the specified posts. The link you offered, sadly, has no information on the viability of montane forest for producing fossil remains of local fauna.

What I'm looking for is a specific rebuttal to renowned British paleontologist Richard Fortey's assessment that montane forest is a poor producer of fossil remains of any kind, so:

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]

How is it that Correa Neto is in direct opposition to this acclaimed paleontologist in this matter? If we can solve this discrepancy, we can add another point to the list of improbabilities associated with BF's existence.

 

[JcR]

Whatever you choose to call it. All bears can enter a "winter lethargy"
Torpor, semi sleep, Winter naps, or the denning period and Winter rest.
Though Bears can have different levels of sleep mode. In late December it can be more like that of
a deep hibernation. Whatever way it's defined
all bears can do this, just in a different fashion compared to smaller animals.
It all depends on the region and food availability.
I like to just call it denning. Female Grizzly bears, Polar bears and Black bears
give birth during this denning period, having a deep sleep while the young cubs feed.
Usually they can be awoken easily. Depends on how deep the lethargy is, but they can be brought out of it
if they are too disturbed.
You could even say bears have a more efficient way of adaptation to changes.
That enable them to go into the appropriate sleep state mode, when food supplies are low.
Bears do not urinate or defecate during "winter sleep" another difference
compared to other animals that need to dispose of this waste during hibernation.

Maybe a Bigfoot has a plug in the digestive tract (similar to bears during Denning)...Why these
plugs form in bears. Long periods without food, feces will still form in the intestines, and things that
hang around in the intestines for too long tend to dry and harden.
All sorts of matter is found in bear fecal plugs.
Probably from waking up from time to time from a "Winter slumber" to groom.
And these plugs smell worse than a unhygienic and unkept Bigfoot.
(Just a guess, I really don't know how bad BF'S can smell)

No! My Bigfoot plug is actually a little different. One that actually does prohibit dung from exiting the body.
A 24/7, 365 days a year fecal Plug.
All the waste that accumulates inside them, is broken down and is reused as protein.
The Dumpyfoot kind of waste disposal. (The plug is just in place to keep spillage from happening)
I guess I'm saying a piece of moss, lichen or garlic will go a long way.
Enabling them to go for extended periods of time without Pooping. On the other hand
I have given consideration, that the Bigfoot may go into a deep hibernation, like a squirrel.
Occasionally arises to do the business of Peeing and Pooping. A Bigfoot with nitrogenous waste in the blood, I'm sure is not a happy camper.
Also, this is a good time to refresh the system to help ward off pathogens to.
Though this scenario has the species defecating and urinating, and is more than likely
a more realistic scenario for Bigfoot. Having natural movements like other animals, and eating
like most other animals do, be it herbivore or a Omnivore.
Of course Bigfoots could just keep on migrating like nomadic fluff balls in search for food and good breeders.
Avoiding hibernation altogether.
Bears can be extremely elusive just like a Bigfoot can be, but a hungry gut can get bears into trouble.
Guess a Bigfoot doesn't let itself get into any trouble, even when some go searching for it.
When we go looking for bears and other animals this can happen. When we go looking for Bigfoot...(insert your favorite BF video here)?
Joking aside...And enough of me babbling here.
We truly will not know the BF'S living habits. Until we get a rather Dumb Dumbfoot that crosses the road at the wrong time.
A real specimen, dead or alive (in my mind anyways) is much needed.
I think at this point more than just photo blobs, poor video, bent tree branches, hoots
in the woods, and Questionable foot casts Will be needed, in order to define this creature as real. Then we can get on with some intensive field research.
Though some intensive searching could eventually lead us to...?

 

[xblade]

I have given consideration, that the Bigfoot may go into a deep hibernation, like a squirrel.

Naaah, it's much simpler than all that. Bigfoot just jumps to a warmer dimension during the winter months. Yeah, I know, it sounds hard to believe, but it is POSSIBLE. And until someone proves that bigfoot does not have the ability to travel to other dimensions, I have no choice but to entertain that possibility.

 

[JcR]

Of course. Interesting! This might explain the flying V blobs that I see in the Fall. An old friend of mine used to call them Blowhards.

 

[JcR]

It is true that bones and very acidic soils don't really agree with one another.
Nature has a way of disposing and preserving. I am omitting a lot of factors here.
Microbial decay,Insects (Entomological activity)
Activity of the local scavengers (that also help disperse the bones)
Precipitation and soil pH, all come to mind.
Micro-environments (just like micro-zones that may be present in one's own garden) can
have interesting affects on decay.
I do agree that Carcasses of larger predatory animals are not something one stumbles across everyday.
They usually meet this fate because of - us killing them, diseases, accidents, and old age.
I did find a dead deer last year. I was following some coyote tracks that led me to a
gutted deer. It is pretty much gone now, I'm sure animal activity was the main reason for this.
I'm sitting here thinking, we see all these animals alive and kicking...But no BF.
If Bigfoot is reported to be all over North America, I would think somewhere along the line it would
Get itself trapped in some natural disaster.like a Mount Saint.Helens. (That would help preserve a BF)
or a big flood that may have washed BF's remains into a cave, or buried it in sediments somewhere.
Naturally mummified on some mountain, anything... Ok! That was a little extreme.
How about simply "kicking off" as it walks by your tent at night.
Something tells me we might stumble upon some kind of bone evidence of recently past Bigfoots,
or find much older remains that may reside in caves. Swampy area full of peat moss. Trapped in sediments
in some river delta. I'm just trying to imagine where a BF might croak, or a place
that water may have carried a dead BF off to. I guess we could be missing all the good BF evidence.
I don't think we have proof either way.
Though lack of evidence that would support such an animal.Suggest to me
that it is more than likely just folklore. Believe me, I am always trying to think of
scenarios how a BF could sustain itself and live pretty much undetected by us. Eat, Breed, and die
without a positive trace for us to discover. (Don't always express them) Don't want to admit I may be nuts.
But I soon forget it all when I see all the wonderful creatures we have present with us today.
Totally unrelated?
You know, when I was a lot younger I was sent out to hunt for snipe with a burlap sack.
They wouldn't even tell me what a snipe was. All they would tell me was "it will fit in a
bread box." I can't remember at what point it finally dawned on me. But I remember running
back to the farm house as mad as hell.

 

[Drewbot]

A few responses to Vortigern's list.

1. What if Bigfoot Migrates (i.e. Caribou) to avoid cold weather, to obtain better forage?
2. What if Bigfoot is Magic? i.e. what if they are born as Mage Level 3, and say full grown female would have the powers of say a Mage Level 7? Dimension door anyone?
3. Why in the two most famous Bigfoot videos, does bigfoot not take the shortest route towards cover? (MDF/ PGF)

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...How is it that Correa Neto is in direct opposition to this acclaimed paleontologist in this matter? If we can solve this discrepancy, we can add another point to the list of improbabilities associated with BF's existence.

I made some searches and it seems there’s a gap in the post records; I think they are no indexed yet. Anyway, here it goes, written as clearly and simple as I can, trying not to get too technical.

Sorry Vort, but there’s a lot of footerlore at that work and it derived even more. Yes, I’m pretty aware some footers will want to kick my balls for saying this, so be it. The errors are not exactly within Fortey’s words; they are actually on the way Glickman tries to use them to explain the absence of remains. And this is nothing but the standard footer information cherry-picking.

Glickman asks us to “suspend disbelief for a moment”. Here’s the clue, here’s the special pleading, here’s where the problems starts. If the reasoning and evidence were solid, there would be no need to suspend our disbelief.

We’ll need first to venture outside geology to start checking the argument; you`ll see that the core of the problem has already been touched my more than a poster here. He claims most sightings are from mountainous regions. Note that this is far from being well-established and the criteria to deduce this are debatable at best, but let’s skip this part.

Let’s restrain ourselves to Glickman’s proposal of mountainous terrain. Well, for sure bigfeet have not evolved at some remote PNW corner and remained there, right? So, let’s side with conventional bigfootery and suppose they evolved from gigantopithecus. Now we have a problem, since these animals were not from mountainous terrain or from an environment similar to bigfoot country (check Ciochon’s site and works for more data).

OK, they could adapt and evolve, right? Yes, it is possible. But here's where Glickman’s reasoning starts to show its holes. Between gigantopithecus known range (South Asia) and bigfoot country there is a vast stretch of land, with huge ecological and geological diversity. Its not an isolated mountain range we are talking about here.

These giant apes could not board the Mayflower and move to North America; they would rather gradually expand their habitats by changing strategies and/or evolving in to new species until reaching North America. They would have to be able to adapt themselves to several types of climates, terrain and vegetation types. It is not just a matter of crossing the space between Southern Asia and North America- it’s a matter of living and breeding across all this space. And here enters the geodiversity of this vast area- plenty of opportunities for remains preservation. Despite this fact, not a single trace of similar animals was found so far. Yes, you might propose a small group of giant apes slowly increasing its habitat along narrow corridors, such as forests along rivers, until they reach North America and stay there, isolated at some distant mountain range. But it’s a huge stretch for me.

And it gets worse. Bigfeet, even according to Glickman, should not be restricted to mountainous terrains. He admits there are reports from other areas. Actually the sightings distribution is scattered across most of North America. Thus, the remains preservation odds are higher than what Glickman tries to make you believe. Despite this fact, not a single trace.

But wait, there’s more! Current bigfoot distribution (even if isolated at some remote mountain range) is the result of centuries of environmental pressures created by European settlers; the original population numbers may have been higher and maybe even more widespread before the settlers. Despite this fact, not a single trace. Note that if you follow the idea that some Native American legends are about bigfoot it is hard to disagree with this conclusion regarding the species’ range(*). Again, to figure out a way out of this results in quite a stretch, don’t you think?

Migration with the first human settlers, as proposed by footers is unlikely. A more complex history, like the “migrations” of big cats and megafauna would be more likely.

Now the fossils in mountain ranges question. It is not impossible, it is only a bit harder. Sediments do accumulate in mountains (they just have a hard time staying there for millions of years) and there may be sedimentary basins at or flanking mountain ranges. Note that most fossils are not found where the animals died; they are transported, say, by rivers, dumped at some river bar and later covered by new sediment layers. Flash floods are responsible for many a wonderful fossil site, for example. Remember also some australopithecines and the gigantopithecus remains were found in caves; bigfoot country has fossil deposits in caves. Some say they record open environments, but remember that this changes with geological time and the faunal records of these caves are not consistent with just open field environments. To this, add lakes, peat bogs and the infamous tar pits. Googling for Pleistocene fossil deposits Pacific Northwest will give you a glimpse of the record; try using Academic Google for better details.

When this discussion appears, the proponents says something like no gorilla fossils, no okapi fossils, no mountain goats fossils… Well, there are indeed fossils of these animals (or of their close relatives). But not a single remain (fossil or not) of a bigfoot-like creature in an area between South Asia and North America…

I’m not saying that the absence of fossils is a nail in bigfoot’s coffin. All I’m saying is that it is a serious problem. It’s one more nail. It narrows even more the gap where bigfeet could hide. Individually, the arguments against bigfoot’s existence as a real animal can be contested, with different degrees of success. The problem is that together these arguments make a very strong case against bigfeet being real- the odds of fulfilling whats requested for all these arguments require a very unlikely combination. Bigfeet should try the lotto! If these critters were real, it is expected that evidence other than specimens would also be available, such as good quality footage or stills not suspected of being a hoax, DNA samples from blood, poop, hair, tissue, etc. Nothing of this type is available.

(*)Actually bigfoot population distribution - assuming they are real - when Europeans arrived should have been the result of interactions with humans for thousands of years. If they arrived before humans, forest management practices by Native Americans may have restricted their habitats.

A note- I will be very liberal with the use of the term “fossil”; I may be talking about material which has not suffered any noticeable amount of mineralization.

 

[desertyeti]

A note- I will be very liberal with the use of the term “fossil”; I may be talking about material which has not suffered any noticeable amount of mineralization.

No worries Correa.
In actuality, a fossil is ANY naturally preserved remnant of past life.
Including: imprints, complete replacement, permineralization, freezing, and desiccation.
point of fact, becoming "fossilized" does not necessarily mean "turned to stone" contrary to what many non-specialists believe.
Frozen wooly mammoths are by definition a fossil just as much as a permineralized T. rex.

Back to your regularly scheduled program....

 

[Drewbot]

I'd like to thank Vort for the intellectual honesty he has shown, Correa for adding the fossil problem, DY for the clarification of what qualifies as a fossil

 

[Correa Neto]

"I will be"... Crap! Cut-and-paste got me!

Well, someone once said my understanding of evolution is limited because I wrote something like "evolution chooses"... Ah, the delicate ballance between informal language and accuracy! Oh! The limitations of language

 

[desertyeti]

Just wanted to point out what a fossil really is in case someone tries to jump down your throat for being "too liberal" when in fact your definition is perfectly accurate.
Carry on!

 

[Correa Neto]

Carrion?
Now my heart is broken and my self esteem shattered!

I will jump in to the bigfeet pit!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

I’m not saying that the absence of fossils is a nail in bigfoot’s coffin.

All I’m saying is that it is a serious problem.

Is the lack of fossil remains of Giganto (a Bigfoot-type creature), a serious problem for it's existence...in ye days of old?

 

[desertyeti]

I will jump in to the bigfeet pit!

As well you should.
Beg forgiveness from his mighty greatness "The Boss of the Woods."
Say 100, no, 1000 "Hail Gimlins" and perhaps you too will be saved by the writings of Krantz.
I will pray to the Pork'n'Beans can on my nightstand for you.

 

[kitakaze]

Is the lack of fossil remains of Giganto (a Bigfoot-type creature), a serious problem for it's existence...in ye days of old?

You mean before 1935? Not really. Nobody was arguing over Gigantopithecus before the fossils turned up. Nobody was thinking anything about it at all. But luckily with over a thousand fossil teeth specimens including some mandibles, we can say Gigantos are no slouches in the fossil record. And you can call Giganto a Bigfoot-type creature if all you need is big and ape but that would make gorillas and orangutans Bigfoot-type creatures as well.

Sweaty wants another trip through the ringer, I see.

ETA: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Gigantopithecus_model.JPG