LAL said:
You know, you should not really believein anything, specially if you are trying to use scientidic methodology. Here´s a trap where most -if not all- "investigators" fall. One must conclude, after evaluating the evidence. Note that you admitted that most sightings happen at night and last less than 20s. Very nice conditions for the proposed explanation.
You should, however, consider the following possibilities:
(a)Pareidolia and similar phenomena ("daydreaming", etc.)- Witnesses confused either ordinary animals - or no animal at all jut shadows and lightining playing games with the mind;
(b)Witnesses were fooled by hoaxer(s)
(c)The sighting itself is a lie, a hoax.
LAL said:
It happens. No one is saying it doesn't
Pareidolia doesn't leave tracks.
So, at all sightings tracks are found? What is the percentage? And tracks, as it happens quite often, can be misinterpretated. What´s the percentage of possible misinterpretations? How many of these tracks were examinaed by people who really can understand them, and not an average joe/jane?
Correa Neto said:
So, can you tell me why there are no remains -fossil or not- of a creature that is supposed to live across a large part of Asia and North America? Uh... Eh... Because its not real?
LAL said:
Because of the habitat. Ape fossils of any kind are extremely rare. Hominid fossils are too. How many times do I have to point this out?
How many times do I have to point out that they exist, across the huge are they inhabited and that forest animals do get fossilized. And that bigfoot and related species, that have a geographic span of comparable size, never left a remain, fossil or not.
LAL said:
Bryne pointed out a dead elephant disappears in four days, leaving only a big black spot.
And the source of his statement was?
I have seen some documentaries on Africa that showed elephants carcasses that were much older than four days. I also happen to have two friends from South Africa who own game farms. And they pointed out that even gazelles´carcasses can last for a lot longer.
LAL said:
Need more bones of Giganto, for starters. I don't know about the teeth. Again, the species is only known from three jawbones and about a thousand teeth.
So, you must agree that its worthless to say it may be a relative to bigfoot. Gigantopithecus is completely useless as evidence for the existence of big foot. Actually it can be used as a smoking gun of its inexistence. Not to mention that first one must prove that bigfoot exists.
Correa Neto said:
So be it, 4000, the average. He based on what to achieve this figure?
LAL said:
He said it was guesswork and he said 2000. There's an estimate based on reports.
Ah. Guesswork. Very solid.
Correa Neto said:
Anyway, lets suppose bigfeet are real, and dwell in forests. So, Europeans colonize North America, forests have their area decreased, thus bigfeet´s habitat area also decresed, right? Not to mention the introduction of chemicals such as pesticides in the environment. And you say its possible the number of specimens actually may have increased? Weird...
LAL said:
Why? Eastern sightings seem to be more recent and on the increase. There are more reports from Skamania County than from the whole state of Tennessee. Who uses pesticides in the forests anymore? We haven't managed to destroy all the habitat in this country yet. I drove across the country in 1997 and I was amazed at how much wild &/or sparsely populated areas there are left.
It's not known if they managed to spread all over the country tens of thousands of years ago.
So, a forest animal has its habitat decreased but not its numbers? Regardless of how the environment recovered after conservation laws were created (and respected), the new-grown forests (note that this may encompass forests that may be over 40-years old), are very different in terms of biodiversity. And many are not yet able to sustain the same type and number od animals they did before. Not to mention that you must take in to account the lifespan (that if you accept cripplefoot exists must be above 40 years) and reproductive cycle of any species when considering how fast its number will (re)grow. Usually species composed of specimens that live long take more time to increase its number. And regarding pesticides, by your statement, I must assume you are not aware on their effect in the environment. It does not matter if no one uses prohibited pesticides anymore. Their effect is cumulative, and not only may last for decades but also tends to concentrate its effects at the top of the food chain, where large animals are located.
And you are contradicting yourself. They MUST -of course, if they exist(ed)- have spread "almost all over" USA and Canada tens of thousands years ago and before European colonization. As most (if not all) large forest animal species, their numbers must have been quite larger when European colonist arrived at North America. And no one managed to shot one since the starting of colonization?
Correa Neto said:
Other than that, the usual may and could excuses for the lack of evidences.
LAL said:
There's plenty of evidence. That you refuse to see that is not my problem.
There´s weak evidence. That bigfoot researchers so far manage to provide just substandard quality evidence is their problem. But neither I or anyone else is forced to accept such poor data. That you refuse to see that is not my problem -unless you are debating it with me and the other posters here. And, in this case, being rude will not be of any help.
Correa Neto said:
If large primate live (or lived in historical times) in Europe and tropical Asia, then its even more unlikely that such animals would still be unknown.
LAL said:
They're known by the local people and Russian scientists evidently take this much more seriously than American scientists do.
These Russian scientists, have they managed to publish at least one paper at a peer-reviewed science magazine of some importance? Or are they of the same type that said Nina Kulagina was the real deal?
LAL said:
I used the spelling from the book. It's on several websites as well. I've found two so far that say it's a hominid or sloth sort of thing, not a fanciful assemblage of unrelated animal parts.
So, the websites are wrong when it comes to the spelling and the way they tell the myth. The legend do speaks of a fanciful assemblage of unrelated animal parts. Are you going to deny that? The description I provided was taken by me directly from people who live in the Amazon forest and matches perfectly with that on the Amazonian myths site whose link I posted. Is it that hard to accept that the legend was distorted (consiently or not) by those who claim the mapinguari may be a crypto?
Those websites are far from being reliable sources of information.
Correa Neto said:
legend is about a creature whose mouth is so big that is located at it´s belly, has just one eye, whose skin is like that of an alligator and whose back has a turtle-like shell. Got the picture? Its the way the people an the Amazon forest desribe it, taken personally and directly from them. If you don´t want to take my word, try checking:
http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore..._mapinguari.asp <http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore/lenda_mapinguari.asp>
Its in Portuguese, but has an "artistic concept"...
LAL said:
There are conflicting ideas on this apparently. There's the Didi as well. Now, can we drop it?
Sure. But then we´ll drop also on bigfoot, since there are conflicting ideas about it as well. My point is the unreliability of legends interpretation as source of information. Do you accept that?
Correa Neto said:
Now, if Heuvelmans, Sanderson and Coleman think its a primate, and David Oren thinks of it as a "medium-sized Giant Sloth", I say they either reinterpretated and distorted the original myth in a way to suit their needs or have very poor anatomy and biology knoweledge. In both cases, its lousy data handling, at best.
So, what about considering the possibility that sasquatch is a myth from Native North-Americans.
LAL said:
Perhaps they interviewed people who had had sightings rather than listening to mere mythology.
<http://www.occultopedia.com/m/mapinguary.htm>
Myths don't leave footprints. Native people have had encounters too.
Didin´t you asked to drop the issue? The myth was distorted by these people to fit their own needs. They picked up the parts that suited (vague humanoid shape, claws, etc.) and interpretated according to their own cultural backgrounds. I have seen this happen a handfull of times not only with the mapinguari, but also with other legends. And regarding the footprints, what evidence do you have that they were not misinterpretated? What´s the surce? Occultopedia?
And are you sure they went to the Amzon forest and interviewed people who claimed to have seen the animal? Or, as adopted as standard practice by many "researchers", they just used scond- or third-hand accounts?
Can you be sure that the sasquatch as a giant unknown to the science hominid is not just an interpretation based in the cultural background of bigfeet researchers? And that the original myth meant something else, that fitted well within Native North American´s cultural background?
And regarding encounters... Well, people also claim to have had encounters with aliens. And there are footprints of aliens, landing gear marks, burnt vegetation, etc. Where to draw the line? Why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality?
Correa Neto said:
Any biologist saw them? Anyone working there managed to get nice pictures?
LAL said:
I don't want to have to keep going over this. Just reread my posts.
As I tought. No biologist saw a bigfoot. No evidence, just lame excuses.
Correa Neto said:
Yes, and refused to understand what I wrote about using Pacific Northwest as standard. Does the remains -fossil or not- have to come from PNW? I guess not. Your opinions are heavilly biased towads´s PNW´s "special conditions". What cause the whole argument to be flawed.
LAL said:
The best evidence is from the PNW. There is nothing to indicate they can live out side a forested environment, yet you would have them adapted to another habitat so you can claim there "should" be fossils. There's your flawed argument.
Q. Are all forests in North America and Asia where these animals are supposed to live (or to have lived) similar to those of PNW?
A. No.
Here´s one of the flaws in your argument. I say there should be fossil remains of bigfeet and related species as well as recent remains.
Correa Neto said:
Same words said by those who belive in UFOs...
LAL said:
Please leave UFO's out of this.
Just after you answer me why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality.
Correa Neto[/i]
[B]You are kidding? You wrote this before thinking said:
Of course not. Now, how many Black Bear fossils have been found outside of an Alaskan cave?
I think you should only write this sort of thing after being certain about it. There are a lot of fossils of several species of bear.
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Wooding_1997.pdf
http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html
Correa Neto said:
And if you are just referring to PNW, well, again, its pretty useless. You know, bigfeet are not supposed to live just there, remains should heve been found somewhere else, for a species with such a large territory...
LAL said:
It's an unknown higher primate. Hominid. There is no resemblence to squirrels and no evidence they evolved in NA. I'll give you a moment to get your scientific foot out of your mouth. I really didn't think you were serious.
I´ll say again, being rude will not help. The only thing that might help you are solid evidences. What so far has not been provided by any big feet researcher.
And have you ever heard of convergent evolution? See, a hipothesys stating that bigfeet evolved from squirrels or opossums via convergent evolution is at the very same level than any other about bigfeet´s evolution, since it is based on absolutely nothing of solid. First prove the animal exists. Then prove its a hominid.
And if they evolved somewhere else, where are the fossil of their ancestors?
Feel free to take all the time you need to take your feet of your mouth.
Correa Neto[/i]
[B]It really does not atter if its the area you are most familiar with. Its not the only place where these creatures are supposed to live!! Therefore said:
I know from firsthand experience what those forests are like, what the lakeshores are like, what the rivers are like, what the wildlife is like...........
Sorry, but since not all forests in North America and Asia where these animals are supposed to live (or to have lived) are identical to those of PNW, all you´ll managed to obtain were biased opinions.
LAL said:
The flows in the area are mostly basalt and andesite.
Erosion of basalt? Basalt gets etched by acid detrius. Takes centuries. It's incredibly hard. So's andesite. St. Helens blew ash. It washed down in mud flows (yes, I saw the Toutle).
You´d better check your sources. Again. Dacite is the main type of lava, and it is also the type that nowdays is building the dome. Mt Saint Helen, as well as all the volcanos at the Cascades are what composite volcanoes. They were built by intercalations of tuffs (AKA ashes) and lava.
Check again your sorces when it comes to weathering of basalt. Basalt is composed by pyroxenes and calcic plagioclases (depending on the basalt it may have olivines). These minerals are very poor in water. In contact with water (atmospheric, raind, rivers, etc) they hidratate and become clay. Ph level has little to do with it. Climate is the most important factor. The more rainy and hot the climate, the faster will be the weathering.
LAL said:
The Columbia is clear compared to say, the French Broad which is brown and nearly in flood. Didn't see any dead animals along its banks Sunday.
Northwest streams are crystal clear and their beds are rocky. Some of the lakes are like that too. There are sandbars in the Columbia, but there just aren't huge amounts of silt coming down from the glaciers. It probably gets filtered out by vegetation before it gets very far..........
Didn't I already mention St. Helens laid down a couple of hundred feet of ash?
Ash=tuff. You can´t say there´s no silt in those rivers before making a detailed analysys of the sediment that is being carried. And if there are glaciers that feed rivers, and the glaciers and the rivers pass through ash layers, then there´s silt. Even if they pass through solid rock. Ice from glaciers is an incredible erosive agent. It crushes and mills rocks. The flood water are crystal clear too?
LAL said:
So you're telling me dead Sasquatches should be quietly covered in silt rather than being scavanged right next to all the bodies of deer and bear who frequent those lakes but whose bodies (let alone fossils) aren't found either.
A claim that you can not defend. Some peoplehere, including a ranger, have pointed aout that animal remains are found in the forests. And don´t write "In PNW..." because it´s been already answered.
LAL said:
Seems Ray Crowe checked some areas on St. Helens and found a baked piece of some animal. The blast blew things to bits. I guess there's not much chance of finding much of anything under all that ash, other than trees.
And all bigfeet live(ed) there? No. So, where are all the remains of the animal that lived at all these other places, since they arrived to North America?
LAL said:
You twist my words and then expect me to accept your misinterpretation. ...snip...
Talking about twisting words...
As the song says, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"
LAL said:
There's both. Members of the Cree Nation reportedly excavated whole tracks rather than merely casting them. The film shows a creature wading in water that was 4' deep. It's estimated height was 9-10'. Tracks were found before and after the event and there's been a sighting since. There were three sightings in the general area in a year.
So what? Unreliable evidence.
LAL said:
because it doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions They dismiss it out of hand, as you do, because it doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions and are willing to accept the most outlandish explanations (such as hoaxed tracks in remote areas) rather than really look into it. The few experts who have looked into it have come away convinced (Dr. Daris Swindler, e.g., despite 30 years of scepticism preceeding his examination of the Skookum Cast.)
What if I said you dismiss perfectly logical explanations because they don't fit in with your preconceived notions that there´s a 3m-high ape living in North America´s forests?
Correa Neto said:
So you admit your claim that there are no dry seasons is flawed. And that the way the remains of these and other animals could be preserved within caves is reasonable. Even if they never use caves as shelter.
LAL said:
It was a drought, not a dry season, and a very rare event for that area. The usual was getting caught in the storm track and having rain for weeks at a time. The last year I was there, poles fell over because the ground was so wet and the east end of town slid.
Talking about twisting words... You know, for someone who claims to know wildlife, you are pretty unaware of some aspects of animal behavior... Rare event. OK. How many times this rare event happened in your lifetime? Let´s suppose it happens just once every 50 years (no, I´m not stating this is your age), Since we are talking about a period of 10Ky, that would be a total of 200 droughts. At least, since there may be other droughts "periodic" or not, smaller or larger...
So, at droughts animals are not attracted to water sources such as caves? And these are not potential remains preservation sites? And aren´t there caves along several places withing bigfeet´s supposed habitat range?
Oh, I see "at PNW..."
Look, the points of ths discussion on dry seasons, as well as those on geology, are to show you that:
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;
(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat
You are making claims that you can´t really defend.
LAL said:
I know of no animals being preserved in lava tubes. do you?
Correa Neto said:
That another claim you can´t defend. Do you really thing the only way inside a lava tupe is by its end? Have you never noticed that a certain places there are parts of their ceilings that have collapsed, creating entrances, and that water may enter through it, flowing downhill? So, you´ll now write that Ape Cave has no such openings? Then I´ll write that Hawaii´s lava tubes have such openings.
LAL said:
And do rare Hawaiian animals get quickly covered in silt and preserved in lava tubes?
So, more claims that can not be defended.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA08/galop896.html
http://www.geoworld.org/na/usa/hi/prehistory/
And please, try not mixing the preservation processes.
And what about considering that what you know about PNW and what you gathered at the internet about caves may not be of great use as a standard for comparsion with other places?
Correa Neto[/i]
[B]And material do get washed inside these caves by water. And that similar but smaller caves in Galapagos and other oceanic islands do have fossil content. What will you write next? That PNW´s lava tubes don´t have such feature? And I´ll then write that your opinion is based just in what you know about PNW said:
How condescending can you get? You do know Hawaiian volcanes are quite different from volcanoes in the Northwest, don't you?
You are demonstrating to have very little knoweledge on what you are talking about. Hawaiian volcanoes are the type known as shield volcanoes. They are mainly composed by thick basaltic lava layers that create very gently-sloping (but very high - Hawaii´s elevation from the sea floor -where the volcanoes rise from- to its top is higher than that of the Everest, when measured from the sea level) mountains. What is quite different from the Cascades´ composite cones built by interlayered tuffs and lava flows. Now, these basaltic lavas are very fluid, due to their composition and eruption temperature. Thus, they flow for long distances and cool slowly, what makes lava tube formation easier, hence the number of this type of cave that exists in Hawaii and other oceanic islands created by similar volcanoes. So, your point was?
And as in the other cases, the purpose of this was to demontrate that :
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;
(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.
Correa Neto said:
Not to mention that, as I wrote before, why should anyone bother with the lava tubes, if there are plenty of other places (caves, sedimentary deposits, roads, etc.) within bigfeet´s habitat where remains -fossil and recent- could have been found, if it existed?.
LAL said:
Because it's known there are Sasquatches on and about St. Helens and St. Helens has lava tubes? What animals have been preserved in them? Bear, maybe?.
Twisting words again, eh? Are lava tubes at the Cascades the only places where remains -fossil and recent- of bigfeet could be found?
And as in the other cases, the purpose of this was to demontrate that :
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;
(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.
Correa Neto said:
Who cares? I´ll write again, since you seem to be having problems understanding the argument. These animals are not restricted to the Pacific Northwest of USA. Its not the only place these animals are supposed to exist. Its remains -past and recent- shoud have been found somewhere else.
LAL said:
Such as all northern states from USA, a great part of Canada and a chunk of Russia. And if there are reports of sightings at Tenesse, yes, that´s would be another place to find remains, past or present.
LAL said:
Nope. Sasquatches are bipedal. They can easily step behind a tree. They're dark, usually. They blend right into the shadows.
Deers are not as tall as bigfeet, are they? Compare a 3-m tall bigfoot with a deer that can easily hide in the underbrush. Deer also blend in the shadows.
Oh, and deer have left remains, fossil and recent.
LAL said:
Creationists use that to say Goddit, 6,000 years ago. No similarity. We don't have fossils of everything that ever walked the earth. But we "should"?
And you are using the same argument to explain why there are no bigfeet fossils. So, creationists can´t use it as an evidence against evolution but you can use it as an excuse for the absence of bigfeet fossils?
LAL said:
Perhaps frustrated is a better word. I don't have time to waste on some of the attempted humor and endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.
That´s exactly what you are providing. An endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.
edited to fix typos and cut-and-paste mistakes
