Originally posted by LAL Krantz examined 750 casts and examined tracks in situ. Meldrum has examined tracks in situ on five occasions. Chilcutt examined Meldrum's collection (over 100), Ed de Palma, another fingerprint expert, examined casts in Krantz' possession. And then there are the many law enforcement officers who investigate right after a sighting........
I will not enter in to this topic that is already being covered by other posters. My point is (not that it has not been raised already by someone elde) - If this evidence is so conclusive, why no one else cares?
Maybe because its not that conclusive?
Originally posted by LAL They may have left remains and even fossils that have never been found. You know fossils can be exposed and then weathered away before anyone discovers them.
The forests of the NW cover an area larger than Britain. I don't know of any fossil beds in that area, Pleistocene or otherwise.
Yet, many survive and are found and studied...
Still, focusing in PNW, eh? No problem, I am persistent. The PNW could be completely composed by Archean gneisses. It would not make any difference. Why? Because the animal is not supposed to live just there and to have evolved there. So, fossil sites -note the difference in terminology, not just “fossil bedsâ€, as you write- of the right age, anywhere along its habitat area (North America plus Northeastern Asia) are potential sources. And where are also the recent remains, that should be found at any place where the animals live nowdays? The “special conditions†of PNW are also present at the other places?
Once again, basing your reasoning in what you suppose that you know about PNW is creating biased opinions that are not valid.
BTW, why restrict the age to Pleistocene, may I ask, since we are talking also of ANY species that may be related to it?
Originally posted by Correa Neto And the source of his statement was?
Originally posted by LAL Personal experience, I suppose. He searched for and found Asia's largest elephant. He wrote a book on it....snip...
So, you suppose...
Anyway, my friends who own game farms in South Africa also said, by their personal experiences, that even gazelle´s carcasses can last for much longer there... And by personal (and unpleasant) experiences I can also say that carcasses of bigger and smaller animals can last much longer in other types of environments.
Perhaps he said elephant carcasses
can disappear in four days, and that´s a completely different picture. I must also point that its probably not very easy to make elephant femurs disappear (unless you use magic).
Originally posted by LAL To convince science, one must bring in a body (which is no easy task) and then make comparisons to scanty fossil remains. I favor an Australopith, myself.
I don't think it's worthless to speculate about it. Giganto's mode of locomotion hasn't been established. A toe bone would help. Why hasn't anyone found a toebone?
If the locomotion mode of Gigantopithecus and the existence of bigfeet were not proved, than to debate if bigfeet are related to it, australopitecines or squirrels is a waste of time, since no conclusion can be obtained.
The question is not “Why hasn't anyone found a toebone from Gigantopithecus?†It should be “Why hasn't anyone found any bones -fossil or present- from bigfeet?â€
Originally posted by LAL Ah. Guesswork. Very solid.
Originally posted by LAL
There's been no census.
Sure. How can one make a census of immaginary creatures?
Originally posted by LAL Most of the deforestation has been in the East. Reports started coming in (to the white world) when settlers moved West. I think it's possible they started spreading into the East and Southeast relatively recently. There's not only a lot of wildland left, there's formerly logged over land that now has mature timber on it. In a sense, the habitat has increased since the unbridled logging of a century ago.
Note that this would be in direct contradiction with the existence of any old native legend on bigfeet from the west.
And also, if their population was originall from the East, where are the remains -fossil and recent? Why the animal has not been found and described before?
Not to mention that using the western area as a standard for the eastern ones will induce biased opinions with great chance of being wrong.
Originally posted by LAL I was active in the Sierra Club soon after DDT misuse was at its height. The Forest Service was spraying the National Forests and using chemical fertilizers while spraying herbicides to kill the Alder. I wish you'd stop assuming I'm unaware.
Only after you stop considering that I and the other people who are discussing with you here are no aware of what we are talking about.
Originally posted by LAL The Bald Eagle has recovered enough to be taken off the endangered list. It was never seriously threatened in areas that didn't have a lot of agriculture, but Brown Pelicans had a 100% reproductive failure (due to thin shelled eggs) one year. Species that were most affected were the fish-eating birds at the top of the food chain. .
Now, isn´t there something written somewhere about bigfeet eating salmon?
What do you consider as being “far from agriculture� If the river pass through a number of farms that use too much pesticides, everything downriver will be affected. Even in the sea. Haven´t you read about the dead zone off Florida?
Originally posted by LAL At one time human milk had higher than acceptable levels of DDT. The government kept raising the acceptable levels.
So how did humans, also at the top of the food chain, survive? We were eating products that were directly sprayed. When I was a kid in suburban Chicago, we and the mosquitos were directly sprayed.
So, with this you are now claiming that brds are affected, but DDT has no efect in humans and that we should not worry? No, I don´t want to enter in another OT discussion. I am just telling you to be carefull with what you write. And I am not twisting your words. Its just a conslusion after your words.
Originally posted by Correa Neto 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?
Originally posted by LAL I've said before Green has five reports of shootings.
No contradiction. There are a couple of scenarios, both of which I've presented.
Ok, then where are the bodies?
See? Unreliable reports.
As for the no contradiction, see above my reply on your supposition regarding bigfeet population moving westward.
Originally posted by LAL I'm sorry if I appeared rude, but I don't think anything I've said compares to some of the statements that have been directed at me by some of the posters.
And what do I have to do with it? Am I one of those who has been rude with you? I just roughned the tone a bit
after receiving a number of rude responses by you.
Originally posted by LAL I don't think my superiors would accept posting on message boards as a legitimate excuse for being late, so from now on I'll only answer you when I have more time and am not feeling frustrated and testy about some of the mockery and put-downs.
We all have real lives.
Originally posted by Correa NetoThese 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?
Originally posted by LAL I hope not. Google Bayanov, for one. Seems a Russian scientist has seen one. I 'll try to get her name.
Letters at bigfoot forums...
What about some papers?
I´m sorry but it sounds pretty vague.
Originally posted by LAL There's disagreement, okay? Even on the spelling, which may have been Anglicized. I'd really like to rein in the subject a bit. Crypotozology deals with unidentified animals, and really only deals with mythological animals when the myths may be based on real creatures. Some of the cryptids have been identified and classified.
So, you really think the creature descripted in the
original mapinguari myth is plausible?
Originally posted by LAL Some of the legends from the Coast tribes, BC and California seem to be a fit. Others are too much of a stretch. But I find it interesting the fits are from where the largest population seems to reside.
So, isn´t that in contradiction with the supposition of bigfeet population moving recently towards west pushed by human advance?
Originally posted by LAL I've posted a number of links on footprints, both here and on the Bigfoot Follies thread. Please read them.
This is the first time I've ever used Occultpedia (or even seen the site) and that was only in support of the spelling and hominid interpretation.
And I think its not that hard to see it was not reliable. And that the hominid interpretation is not in agreement with the creature as described by the legend. Thus showing that this sort of data is unreliable.
Want another example? I can provide you some information on the mokelembembe, showing a similar distortion, if you want.
Originally posted by Correa Neto 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?
Originally posted by LAL Nope. This is new to me.
So, here´s what may be one of the greatest sorces ofdisagreement between you and most of us here from JREF (as well as all the “mainstream scientists†who thing bigfeet is not plausible).
It´s about the way conclusions are drawn and how data is handled. You saw (at least I hope so) that the original information did not matched with the interpretation. I could go on on this issue, but other people have already touched on it.
Originally posted by Correa Neto 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?
Ah. Sighting reports.
And this was taken from the text:
“The Sasquatch has been blamedâ€
Has anyone actually
seen the act?
Originally posted by LAL 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?
Originally posted by LAL It's not. My favorite "burnt mark" was in a road. The perpetrator forgot to remove the matches.
So, that one was a hoax. And what about all the other ones? You know that UFOlogists use a very similar reasoning? You know, when I was (very) younger, I also was a “researcher†of UFOs. And any UFOLOgists would say that there´s much more solid evidence for UFOs than for bigfoot. Where and how to draw the line?
Originally posted by LAL I say there are few fossils anywhere (with the exception of marine). I find your whole "should" argument flawed. When I was a kid only three human "ancestors" (none were, actually) were known and one of them was Piltdown Man! In Dubois' time they didn't know which continent to look on. When Darwin came up with his theory no hominid fossils had been found at all. But they "should" have been, right?
There are so many holes in the above reasoning that I will just point a few, on the “Darwin came up†line.
-the areas where most hominid fossils were found have not yet been researched;
-paleontology was a young science, kept under the church´s umbrella
-Darwin´s masterpiece was published in 1859; the first Neanderthal fossil was found in 1848 (check Wikipedia);
-Dubois decided to seach for the “missing link†and found “Java manâ€...
Originally posted by LAL ...snip...
I asked specifically for fossils of Black Bear (Krantz estimated 100 Black Bear for every Sasquatch) in the Pacific Northwest, where even bodies of Black Bear that died of natural causes are seldom, if ever found. I've never said there are no bear fossils.
And why the area must be restricted to PNW, if black bears are not supposed to be endemic of that particular area? Neither to have evolved thate?
The same is valid for bigfoot. They are not endemic to PNW neither were supposed to have evolved there. Therefore, remains -fossil or not- could be found all along its supposed habitats, present and past (North America and Northeastern Asia). To base your opinions just in PNW creates biased and flawed arguments, just like this one.
So, Krants
guesses a 100/1 black bear/bigfoot ratio.
So if there are 359,200 black bears across the whole North America (
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/c286.htm), that would be 3592 big feet. Big feet population figures are quite variable, eh? 14000, 6000, 4000, 3000, 2000... Krantz figures are valid just for PNW?
Originally posted by LAL Right, no bodies or testable tissue, yet, but plenty to point to a living animal. Science will give the grants to go get the body after a body's been brought in.
More misunderstanding and rants about science...
I´ll write again. If a biologist -or undergraduate biology student- or a wildlife photographer (pro or amateur) is making a study on say, black bears, and manages to get a non-fuzzy non-blurry pic of a bigfoot, and there´s no evidence of fraud, money will come. Even if the picture is taken say, by Krantz. But since all that bigfoot supporters manage to provide sor far are poor evidences...
Originally posted by LAL My feet are not in my mouth. Similar adaptations occur in similar niches, but hominids do not evolve from squirrels. Sasquatches have hominid characteristics right down to the fingernails.
Assuming the creature exists, all that you have is a description of its external appearance. Now, have you ever compared a reconstruction of a
Smilodon[/b] with a reconstruction of a Thylacosmilus ? The first is a placentary mammal, the second a marsupial. They were very similar, saber-teeth included. So, since nothing is known about bigfoot other than speculation, why canpt I suppose that they evolved from squirrels or from marsupials to occupy the same niches giant hominids would occupy?
Here´s my cryptozoology “theoryâ€: Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.
Enjoy your time debunking it.
But please note that the only goal is to check the quality of evidence being used to create suppositions on bigfeet´s alleged affinity with hominids as well as how sure one can be of theses speculations.
Originally posted by LAL [B It's the acid that etches the basalt and releases micronutrients, which is why the soils are so good, where you can find any. I rather thought the black sand was an end product of basalt erosion. Clay was pretty uncommon, as I recall. The rocks were identified by a geologist friend of my first architect. [/B]
Nope. “Etching†is not even the correct term. Plagioclases, pyroxenes and olivines (if present) react with water and become clay minerals. Since the original minerals are rich in Fe, Mg and Ca, the resulting soils are good for plant growth. That´s called chemical weathering. Black sand may be a product of physical weathering (mechanical fragmentation of the rocks by temperature differences, wind, water, etc.) of basalts, dacites, andesites, etc.
Not even at the forests the soils have clay?
Originally posted by LAL
I never said no siltation; I said little. Normally there wouldn't be enough to bury an animal before scavengers got it. Deer mice eat the bones to obtain calcium. Quick burial is really necessary, but then you have soil that is loaded with microbes that eat organic matter. So, little chance of preservation and even less of being found.
Besides remembering that PNW is not the only place where bigfeet remains -fossil or recent- should have been found, I must remind you also that, in a lake, for example, there´s no need for rapid burial. And that at a river bed, burial can be fast. Since we -at least I think- agree that even forest animals die at lakes and rivers, and that bigfeet is not restricted to PNW...
Originally posted by LAL Streams in Washington are crystal clear. A volcanic eruption that happens maybe once in 10,000 years isn't exactly a usual occurance. I'm not saying there's no siltation, but what I've seen would hardly be enough to cover a gnat. It tends to get filtered out by the vegetation en route to lower elevations. Sasquatches don't live above timber line.
The land I owned is between St. Helens and the Columbia (with Greenleaf Peak in between. It received a light dusting from the second eruption, but there was no inundation from the main eruption in that area.
When you look at a fast-flowing river bed, what do you see? Rocks and perhaps some coarse sand, Ok? Why? Because silt and clay-sized particles are being transported, and will be deposited where the current slows down. That will be at lakes or where the river gets wide and/or with a slow current.
And take my word. An eruption (not necessarily one so big as that last one) can deposits millions of tons of ash. And since the vocanoes of the Cascades are a bit older than 10ky...
Have I mentioned that it realyy does not matter, since bigfeet are not supposed to be endemic to PNW, neither were supposed to have evolved there? And that therefore, remains -fossil or not- could be found all along its supposed habitats, present and past (North America and Northeastern Asia). To base your opinions just in PNW creates biased and flawed arguments, as well as off topic discussions just like this one?
Originally posted by LAL Krantz interviewed dozens of people who frequent and study forests and got an answer of "0" on bear bodies (where cause of death was natural). I've found remains myself (I don't want to go through the horse story again; it's too painful), such as the skeleton of a deer hit by a car, but they were few and far between. There are few roads and fewer hunters in some of these areas. It's sheer luck to come across a body of any kind.
Hmm... He did not interviewed the ranger that posted here at this thread saying that the “no bear carcasses†line is not real... Neither you who has found remains of animals... I wonder if his sampling could not have been a little skewed...
Originally posted by Correa Neto Talking about twisting words...
As the song says, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"
Originally posted by LAL Do you sing that to yourself in the mornings when you look in the mirror?
No. Just at night in pubs, if I took some extra booze shots and if there are reasons for that.
Originally posted by LAL I didn't start out with any "preconceived notions". I'd never heard of the things before I encountered Green's early books and then read an account of the Cox sighting on the front page of the Columbian. Wouldn't you be at least interested in a sighting with physical evidence a few miles from where you were planning to live and only about 40 miles from the current residence?
Ok, then why you wrote I have preconceived ideas? I had my time of “bigfeet beliverâ€. I read books, etc. But, the more I learned about nature, the less plausible bigfeet became to me. And, if the propper evidence pops out, I will happily change my mind.
And what about you? What would it take for you to change your mind? Before answering, please think if your opinion has not shifted from the rational to the belief field.
Originally posted by LAL Talking about twisting words... You know, for someone who claims to know wildlife, you are pretty unaware of some aspects of animal behavior...
Originally posted by LAL Such as? I don't claim to be an expert, but I know there are no Jaguars in the areas I'm talking about.
You stated that fossils of jaguars and bears were found together. If not, your sentences were not clear enough.
You said grizzlies don´t live in forests.
You were not aware on how animal remains can end in caves, even if they never spent any times in them when alive...
I could go on, but for the sake of politeness and to keep focus on the topic, I´ll end here.
Originally posted by LAL I've never said they might not use caves at all, but, I don't think there would be any need to seek water in caves when there's so much of it around. Some animals just lick snow.
And why do you think they lick snow?
And do all bigfeet live in areas where there´s snow for the to lick? Areas that are not subject to dry periods? To base your opinions just in PNW creates biased and flawed arguments.
Originally posted by LAL Which has the largest population. And lousy preservation. There's a shot of a lava tube in Sasquatch Oddessy. Looks like there's some light coming in and even dripping water (I regret I never got to see them in real life). There's not a hint of a stallagtite. I'd guess there's no mud on the floor.
Oh my... Here we go again.
So, you are basing you opinions on cave environments and fossil preservation in pictures. Its not surprising they have no stalagmites. Limestone caves develop speleothems because the process of their formation involves dissolution and precipitation of carbonate. Here´s where you´ll write “I know thatâ€. Now, you wrote â€I'd guess there's no mud on the floorâ€. I say, maybe they have maybe they don´t. And even i
