Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[kitakaze]

The Olympic Peninsula is a rain forest.

We can find mosasaur fossils on Vancouver Island, but not Bigfoot. Rainforest everywhere here.

Texas is not rain forest, nor is Ohio.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wait wait wait wait...

I will be one of the first persons to say the complete, undeniable, unequivocal absence of fossils which could be somehow related to bigfoot across its whole alleged habitat in North America (and large parts of Asia, depending on how you want to build your bigfoot version) is a major blow at any bigfoot-is-real proposal(*). However, the existence (or not) of mosasaur fossils in Vancouver Island is irrelevant to the discussion. Mosasaurs were giant cool-looking marine reptiles which lived in the Cretaceous and were extincted 65 million years ago (despite the wild claims of some cryptozoology fans). The rocks which contains the fossils you are talking about were deposited at a time back when there was no Vancouver Island, at the bottom of a warm shallow sea much closer to the equator than where they are now.

The quest for bigfoot fossil remains must start at fossil deposits with ages similar to the age where the oldest remains of great apes were found and, of course, in similar environments(**). Regarding the "similar environments" line, anyone willing to use this as an excuse for the absence of remains, please first check the alleged sightings distributions. The "temperate rain forest- only" can only be one of the following (or any combination): a lame excuse, a sign of ignorance from footers on the very subject they are supposed to master or an absence of basic critical thinking skills.

(*) Yes, maybe right now someone is describing or finding some bones which will change this.
(**) Please note remains can be transported before fossilization.

 

[Correa Neto]

Vortigern, thank you very much. Just like I thought the fossil records are scarce.

Same line of reasoning the folks below are using...

 

[The Shrike]

With apologies for the length of this tome, here is a post I made on the old BFF explaining why I think the lack of bigfoot in the fossil (and more recent prehistoric) record is a primary reason for my skepticism. Enjoy.

"You are correct: population density (as well as habitat features at the time of death and the time of discovery - and a good bit of luck) plays a big role in the state of the fossil record for various fauna. It is a fundamental principle of ecology (really the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) that herbivores greatly outnumber the carnivores that feed on them. We have many more Triceratops fossils than we do Tyrannosaurus fossils. The same goes for Quaternary mammals. We have many more fossils of ground sloths than we do of ground sloth predators, such as giant short-faced bears. (Just one great resources to learn more about Quaternary mammals in North America: http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/index.php. I just found a paper describing the current database of mammals from Quaternary Mexico to include . . . "more than 15,000 records for 12 orders, 43 families, 146 genera, and 274 species." )

But here's the problem. We even have a lot of fossils of some of these top predators - creatures that must have occurred at low density. Check out the first sentence of the abstract of this paper:

"Fossils of the giant short-faced bear, Arctodus simus (Cope, 1879), have been recovered from over 100 localities in North America, extending from Mexico to Alaska and California to Virginia."

The point of the paper, of course, is that the authors were reporting two additional fossils from another location. So that's 101 locations, some of which produced multiple fossils of these creatures.

Even if you modify your view of this creature from a "top predator," to more of a "roaming scavenger," you have to admit that that's a robust fossil record for a creature about the same size and probably occurring at a similar population density to that assumed for "bigfoot." Short-faced bears, of course, are just one example. Pick a large predatory mammal from the Quaternary of North America - bears, lions, wolves - we have lots of fossils of these things from all manner of habitats.

So we have a rich fossil record of large mammals - even large mammals that we would expect to occur at low densities - from all over North America. Despite the fact that it's really rare for a fossil to form and even rarer for some knowledgeable human to find it and take steps to get it curated and described in the peer-reviewed literature, we've got a boatload of fossil material. This includes the large mammals that are still with us today: bears, mountain lions, moose, bison - all are well-represented in fossil record.

All except bigfoot, that is.

We might consider something like a bigfoot dispersing overland from Asia to North America via the Bering Land Bridge some time in the mid-to late Pleistocene, just like several other large mammals did. If so, then such creatures must have made use (for generations) of lots of different habitats, just like the other mammals did: forests, steppe grassland, wetlands, muskeg, lakeshores, river corridors, coastlines, etc. Thus it is perfectly rational, reasonable, logical, and scientifically predictable that we should have found at least ONE bigfoot fossil amid all those others. Given that bigfoot is presumed to still be extant, it's also had 10,000–20,000 years of additional opportunity to have the remains of JUST ONE preserved and found, relative to its now extinct Pleistocene counterparts.

So let no one convince you that the lack of bigfoot fossil material is no problem for acceptance of claims that such a creature exists today - it's a big problem, and the problem grows with every paper published on new Quaternary fossil discoveries that do not include such a species. The problem isn't that there should be lots of bigfoot fossils (though there should be) given its reputed range and presumed history of occurrence in the New World (or the Old, for that matter), the problem is that there should be at least one. The lack of a bigfoot fossil record certainly does not prove that they don't exist (I wonder how many times I'll have to write that phrase before people will remember it), but it is highly suggestive. Every other extant large mammal has a fossil record, and we have abundant material from many species of extinct large mammals.

So, special pleaders, have at it. Let's read one more time how I'm a closed-minded shill for those meanie-headed, elitist scientists who are too arrogant to look beyond the walls of their ivory towers and consider the unique factors of bigfoot that allow it to escape detection in the here and now, as well as in the afterlife."

 

[WGBH]

We can find mosasaur fossils on Vancouver Island, but not Bigfoot. Rainforest everywhere here.

Texas is not rain forest, nor is Ohio.

That was a marine lizard from the Cretaceous period. Not a supposed much younger species of bipedal primate and forest dweller. The areas in Texas where the Bigfoot supposedly inhabit are thick forests and swampy areas like the Big thicket and Caddo lake. I get your point about the lack of fossils, but the comparison was weak.

 

[WGBH]

Most of the primate fossils found are a few teeth and jawbones correct? Has there been more of the skeleton found? Are not most of those found in arid areas like the deserts of Africa? The skeleton of Lucy was incomplete correct? These are not arguments here, these are questions. I like to learn, so there is no need to dog pile.

 

[Drewbot]

We might consider something like a bigfoot dispersing overland from Asia to North America via the Bering Land Bridge some time in the mid-to late Pleistocene, just like several other large mammals did. If so, then such creatures must have made use (for generations) of lots of different habitats, just like the other mammals did: forests, steppe grassland, wetlands, muskeg, lakeshores, river corridors, coastlines, etc. Thus it is perfectly rational, reasonable, logical, and scientifically predictable that we should have found at least ONE bigfoot fossil amid all those others. Given that bigfoot is presumed to still be extant, it's also had 10,000–20,000 years of additional opportunity to have the remains of JUST ONE preserved and found, relative to its now extinct Pleistocene counterparts.

Two points:
1. In the mid to late Pleistocene, there were no Rural Driveways, Trailer park windows, campgrounds, penned in dogs, highways, and rest areas, therefore many of it's favorite habitats hadn't existed yet.

2. The easiest way to get a Bigfoot specimen is to drive the highways and two-lanes of the rural areas and wait for a Peterbilt to crush one. Every large mammal in NA gets nabbed by one eventually, elusiveness and cleverness doesn't enter in to it.

 

[Vortigern99]

[1]Most of the primate fossils found are a few teeth and jawbones correct? [2]Has there been more of the skeleton found? [3]Are not most of those found in arid areas like the deserts of Africa? [4]The skeleton of Lucy was incomplete correct? [5]These are not arguments here, these are questions. I like to learn, so there is no need to dog pile.

[1] First let's clarify what "primate" means. Primate is a biological order which includes prosimians (lemurs, tarsiers), monkeys (Old World and New World), apes (gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos) and humans, including ancestral and/or extinct members of all these genera (<---plural of genus, as in Homo).

So the answer is no, there are thousands of fossils of primate species spanning millions of years and multiple continents, many of which consist of more complete remains than a jawbone and teeth.

Here is a thread I started last year compiling genus and species names of those fossil primates suspected to be either ancestral to modern humans, or close relatives. The list is quite long but does not follow the line of descent of any other group of primates, just humans. There are hundreds of other fossil primates and known primate species beyond those listed in that thread.

[2] More of the skeleton of which genus or species? Please be more specific.

[3] Many fossil humans and human relatives have been found in areas which are today arid desert, but which during the time those specimens were alive were forest, swamp, and/or grassland. Since all non-human primates are either arboreal or live in forested habitats, the answer to this question must be a confident no.

[4] The "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29]Lucy[/url]" skeleton is about 40% complete, yes. But she is complete enough that scientists can confidently conclude that her brain was small and ape-like while her means of locomotion was bipedal. The species she represents, Australopithecus afarensis, is further represented by other specimens, including the “First Family”, the Laetoli prints, and “Lucy’s Baby”, aka “Selam”.

[5] Ask away! I enjoy discussing this stuff as it reminds me of facts and theories which I might otherwise forget. Hope this is helping you understand primates and hominin ("human-like") ancestry better.

 

[WGBH]

Great stuff Vort, Thank you very much. I will search for pictures of these primate fossils tonight at home.

I wanted to ask something else.


Vortigern Says:
[3] Many fossil humans and human relatives have been found in areas which are today arid desert, but which during the time those specimens were alive were forest, swamp, and/or grassland. Since all non-human primates are either arboreal or live in forested habitats, the answer to this question must be a confident no.

I realize that these beings or animals being found did not live in a desert. My question was: isn't that where we do most of our fossil hunting? Do people fossil hunt in forests?

 

[Drewbot]

Do people fossil hunt in forests?

http://www.frw.ca/rouge.php?ID=105

 

[Vortigern99]

Fossils are typically found in sedimentary rock, which may be present in some forests, but rock exposures and outcrops (good places to find fossils) are more easily discovered and accessed at road-cuts, quarries, strip mines, gravel pits, creek and river beds, oceanic beaches and lake banks, and construction sites. Also, tar pits can be good places to find animal fossils.

Do people fossil hunt in what are today forests? Yes, but the area must be accessible and must contain features such as those listed above, in which fossils will likely be found.

I think you're getting the impression that "deserts [are] where we do most of our fossil hunting" because many hominin ("human-like") fossils are found in arid zones in East and Central Africa.

ETA: Keep in mind that many fossil primates -- ancient apes as well as close human relatives such as Neanderthal -- have been found in Europe, where there are currently no deserts.

 

[Correa Neto]

Great stuff Vort, Thank you very much. I will search for pictures of these primate fossils tonight at home.

I wanted to ask something else.


I realize that these beings or animals being found did not live in a desert. My question was: isn't that where we do most of our fossil hunting? Do people fossil hunt in forests?

Nope. People will search for fossils wherever they can find sedimentary rocks which may be fossiliferous, be it a desert, tropical rainforest, a mountain range, some chilling wind swept-shoreline or some nice not-too-hot neither not-too-cold place.

Primate fossils have been found at many places, their current climate may or may not be similar to what it was back when the animals were alive. Example- here in Brazil there are fossils of large tree-dwelling monkeys which were found inside caves at regions with semi-arid climate. When those animals lived, these regions had a very different climate, which allwoed the growth of a lush rainforest. And no, the monkeys did not lived inside the caves. They either died there after getting trapped inside there or were carried to the caves by surficial water flow, predators, scavengers, etc. The last case, by the way, is what seems to have happened to some important homind fossils found in South Africa and to gigantopithecus remains in Asia. Both cases are exactly what one would expect also to have happened sooner or later to some giant bipedal ape.

How do I know this? Simple. I am one of those dreaded eggheads (no, not a paleontologist, I'm on ore geology). At the ivory tower I work, there are two paleontologists in rooms next to me. One is a specialist in mammals while the other is a specialist in dinosaurs and trace fossils. Without undressing my immaculate white labcoat, I can get some updates on their work (as well as other people's) while drinking some coffee. Yes, you can take it as an argument on authority or just as an anecdote if you want.

 

[WGBH]

Thanks again Correa Neto and Vortigern. You both gave me great starting points for my internet search this evening.

 

[fossilhound]

What I gave in post 3020 was a range of fossils that have been discovered in purported bigfoot haunts, illustrating that rare fossils dating back as far as 251 million years are routinely pulled out of the ground under bigfoot's feet. Why no bones of an animal that's supposed to be living right now? I camp in the PNW about twice a year. I have run across dead deer 7 or 8 times, dead black bear exactly 3 times. So it doesn't serve to say that the rain forrest gobbles its dead. If bigfoot were real, there would be some sort of fossil trace.

 

[tsig]

What I gave in post 3020 was a range of fossils that have been discovered in purported bigfoot haunts, illustrating that rare fossils dating back as far as 251 million years are routinely pulled out of the ground under bigfoot's feet. Why no bones of an animal that's supposed to be living right now? I camp in the PNW about twice a year. I have run across dead deer 7 or 8 times, dead black bear exactly 3 times. So it doesn't serve to say that the rain forrest gobbles its dead. If bigfoot were real, there would be some sort of fossil trace.

All BF leaves is footprints and blurry pictures.

 

[Correa Neto]

What I gave in post 3020 was a range of fossils that have been discovered in purported bigfoot haunts, illustrating that rare fossils dating back as far as 251 million years are routinely pulled out of the ground under bigfoot's feet. Why no bones of an animal that's supposed to be living right now? I camp in the PNW about twice a year. I have run across dead deer 7 or 8 times, dead black bear exactly 3 times. So it doesn't serve to say that the rain forrest gobbles its dead. If bigfoot were real, there would be some sort of fossil trace.

The problem is how you are addressing your target audience. The message just will not make it the way you built.

Consider the following:

1. Many footers (as well as many fringe subjects enthusiasts) are not like the average student you get in class. A student, when he/she enters classroom is (OK, supposed to be) willing to learn. Many fringe subjects enthusiasts, on the other hand, will claim to already know and that labcoat-wearing mainstream eggheads refuse to accept their pet beliefs poorly disguised as theories. When they come here to debate, they come as evangelizers and crusaders.

2. Fringe subjects enthusiasts quite often are ignorant of science and its methods; some are willing to learn, while others are actually Pol-Pot-grade anti-intellectualits. Many will be willing to learn only to the point where their beliefs start to be threatened. Bottomline- most don't bother.

3. Because of the above issues, some will have problems grasping many analogies and points.

That's why the message must be as clear as possible; I believe most people "on the other side of the fence" missed that the point was the number of species we know as an oppostion to the frequent argument on ignorance they use. By the way ever noticed the "incomplete fossil record" used by footers is the very same line used by anti-evolutionists and creationists?

Don't get me wrong, I know it sounds like I'm trashing them all, but that's not my intention. Ignorance (and sometimes hate) of science is not their fault; it is actually a fundamental flaw of our society. Our society, our culture, by failing to provide a good education is the one to blame. Think about this- many of our cable channels supposed to be educative present shows disguised as documentaries wich promote all sorts of woo. [F-word]education! We want audience and money!

 

[fossilhound]

The problem is how you are addressing your target audience. The message just will not make it the way you built.

Consider the following:

1. Many footers (as well as many fringe subjects enthusiasts) are not like the average student you get in class. A student, when he/she enters classroom is (OK, supposed to be) willing to learn. Many fringe subjects enthusiasts, on the other hand, will claim to already know and that labcoat-wearing mainstream eggheads refuse to accept their pet beliefs poorly disguised as theories. When they come here to debate, they come as evangelizers and crusaders.

2. Fringe subjects enthusiasts quite often are ignorant of science and its methods; some are willing to learn, while others are actually Pol-Pot-grade anti-intellectualits. Many will be willing to learn only to the point where their beliefs start to be threatened. Bottomline- most don't bother.

3. Because of the above issues, some will have problems grasping many analogies and points.

That's why the message must be as clear as possible; I believe most people "on the other side of the fence" missed that the point was the number of species we know as an oppostion to the frequent argument on ignorance they use. By the way ever noticed the "incomplete fossil record" used by footers is the very same line used by anti-evolutionists and creationists?

Don't get me wrong, I know it sounds like I'm trashing them all, but that's not my intention. Ignorance (and sometimes hate) of science is not their fault; it is actually a fundamental flaw of our society. Our society, our culture, by failing to provide a good education is the one to blame. Think about this- many of our cable channels supposed to be educative present shows disguised as documentaries wich promote all sorts of woo. [F-word]education! We want audience and money!

**sigh**

 

[Marcus]

Keating also dabbles in ghosts and UFO investigations and always has. He is also a accomplished amateur meteorologist He is just more well known in Bigfootry. The Bigfoot phenomenon has always been lumped in with the other paranormal topics much to most of our chagrin. Many paranormal conferences ask for a Bigfooter to speak at them. I have been asked to speak at a local one and declined. BTW, I am sure you are glad that comedy is not your profession.

I can see where you might think Bigfoot is not paranormal, but wouldn't his abilities have to be considered paranormal? Like the ability to avoid detection and not leave any hair, scat, bones, bodies, or fossils?

 

[Almo]

I found a YouTube video of Bigfoot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHZNPAp1lmc

 

[Ace!]

...anyone seen a real life sasquatch?

No.