• 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.

Crowlogic's extinct Bigfoot thread

AtomicMysteryMonster

Graduate Poster
A
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
1,004
Over at Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film, a poster by the name crowlogic has stated a belief that Bigfoot existed at one time but went extinct.

crowlogic said:
Reasons why I think Sasquatch went extinct.

1. They never existed in great numbers. Since the advent of modern man range and habitat pressures from human beings combined to drive the low numbers into less hospitable areas which would further lower population numbers. Think about the number of Wild Gorillias in Africa vs the numbers of humans and apply it to the North American Sasquatch vs human ratio and you'll get the idea.

2. Whereas humans displaced nearly all competeing pretadors and prey animals in the most favorable habitats (temperate flatlands and temperate highland valleys) our activities of mining and especially lumbering have been invasive to much of the uninhabitated regions that do not serve as human population centers or farming areas.

3. While large forest areas still remain in the PNW (I do not subscribe to the idea that Sasquatch range extended below Santa Cruz CA or east beyond Idaho) many of these forests are second and third generation of replantings and the variety of flora in these reforested areas is not what it was when those areas were virgin forest. So there is potentially less food for an already diminished population. Creatures can hide and it does indeed seem as if Sasquatch was willing and adept at hiding or at least staying out of human contact. More importantly perhaps was the need or imperiative to stay out of human sight and contact. I mantain that that imperiative combined with the burden of the pressures imposed by segments 1 & 2 conspired to induce in Sasquatch a kind of "open air or wild captivity" that reduce breeding to zero or near zero until this relic population of primates left over from the Ice Age dwindled to an unsustainable number and so the species went extinct in the early to middle part of the last century.
Click to expand...

source

crowlogic said:
Correa Neato wrote "Crow, do you realy ( really) think that an opinion (or a speculation) built over reliable evidence has the same value of one based in nothing?"

Define based on nothing. With regards to the evolution of human and primates there is a great deal of speculation as well as a great deal of credible knowledge that’s been learned from the fossil record. Correct me if I’m wrong here but the fossil record and observations of living humans and primates supports the following credible assumptions that supports both human and primate biology and potential.

1. Primates can and have existed as very small and light weight creatures as well as very large and heavy weight creatures
2. Primates can and have existed as both arboreal and terra based creatures.
3. Primates can and have existed in a wide range of habitat from temporal to tropical.
4. Primates can and have existed as both bipeds and quadrupeds.
5. Primates can and have existed within a great range of hair/fur types textures and colors.
6. Primates can and have existed as herbivores and omnivores .
7. Primates can and have existed as nocturnal and diurnal creatures.

This list I’m sure is not complete but you get the picture. My opinion, based on what is known about primate biology potential, is that there is no biological reason why such a creature as reported in Sasquatch/Bigfoot lore could not have existed and existed long enough to have made it into the funa lore of the 19th century and early 20th century. If you know of any biological or genetic reasons why such a creature should be excluded from that possibility by all means extrapolate. To say that the fossil record does not support it is an incorrect assumption. To say that there is nothing in the fossil record that’s been found to date to support it is the correct assumption. But not every human/primate/ hominid fossil has been yet. How different do you think the final fossil record is going to look once the last tooth or skull has been unearthed? Do you expect it to be more richer and more complex then the one at present? But does the animal in question exist right now? My speculation is that no it does not and for many of the same reasons that Mountain Gorillas would no longer exist if not for the extreme effort to protect the small localized population that does still exist in the wild. My speculation on the Mountain Gorilla is that it to will go extinct in the wild before the end of this century.

With regards to the quality of press/news reporting during the 19th century I’m of the opinion that it was no less reliable than today. However language was used more effectively than it is now.
Click to expand...

source

crowlogic said:
Some skeptics will agree that Sas/BF could have existed and some adamantly will deny such a possibility. It comes down to an opoinion. New World primates exist which confirms that the Old World does not have an exclusive claim to primate evoloution. The fossil record of New World Primates is very sparce but primates were here as early as 14 million years ago. As I'm not certain as to how long it takes a fossil to form I don't know if what we find in the way of human bones dating back 15- 20 thousand years whether these are still bone or whether they are in some state of fossilization. However ancient human remains are somewhat easier to find due to the fact that humans leave traces of where they've inhabited, fire pits, rubbish, tools. And most importantly we've been burrying our dead since almost the beginning which increases the the odds of preservation and later exumation immensely. How many mammal sleletons do you suppose still exist on the PNW forest floor from a death that occured 150 years ago? When I was growing up in a rural area I frequently encountered dead animals. Left to the elements these remains decayed very rapidly. I could if required locate some exact places where as a child I found dead animals. I can guarantee that those places would come up tracless of the remains I encountered in my youth. Sasquatach was an animal or at best a minimal human and as such when it died its remains faced the same fate of any other forest dweller. So much for the New World.

Since the Old World contains a far greater fossil record than the New World, and virtually all of the known ancient hominids its just a matter of time before a fossil is found that will bridge the gap between smallish biped subhumans and larger and heavier biped sub humans.

As for North American reports of Sasquatach/Bigfoot creatures occuring in the 19th Century one either concludes that everyone with such a report ,then as now, is a liar or portrayer of cavalier tales or that some are accurate reportages and recorders of such. Since in the previous two centuries people were much more connected to the land and spent a great deal more time actually on it who's report are you going to trust? That of a hunter, trapper, farmer, or Native living during a period where the wholesale rape of nature had not yet occured? Or that of a modern hunk of consumer society flab that's never actually known wilderness or the potentials contained within?
Click to expand...

source

Naturally, this claim sparked a good deal of discussion. However, due to it being off-topic, I've decided to create a thread for it in the hopes that the discussion can continue without adding to the already large thread on the P/G film.
 
I understand Crowlogic's "BF" could be an extinct species arguement...this seems exceptionally unlikely.

It all gets back to - proof; in this case were are the fossil records to support this claim? Without proof, this and other "BF" arguments, are just lot of words with no substance.
 
Last edited:
A few points...

1. 19th century newspapers are far less reliable than newspapers are today. I recommend plugging "yellow journalism" into a search engine for more on the subject.

2. I was going to recommend checking out this thread regarding claims that Native American traditions and myths support the existence of Bigfoot, but I noticed that you've already read some of it. Despite their living off the land, Native Americans are not the ** that stereotypes might have you believe. I highly doubt that anyone today would use this to argue that bears lose all their fur and gain supernatural powers after consuming human flesh.

3. I doubt anyone here is going to argue that people of the time were all liars and/or fools. Having your eyes play tricks on you does not make one foolish and people then were just as likely to make mistakes as people are today. If a 5'11" guy in a gorilla suit and shoulder pads can make a trained police officer think that he saw a 7' tall Bigfoot, then I'd say that anyone can make similar mistakes. If this is to be believed, an escape dmale slave sparked reports of a "wild woman" If you read pages 32-36 of Chad Arment's The Historical Bigfoot, you'll find accounts of misidentifications, faked tracks, fake calls, and costumes from that time period. Here's the beauty of it: Even if those stories themselves are hoaxes, they still show that the idea of faking tracks, making wildman costumes, etc. existed in peoples' minds then.

Here's a confirmed account of a movie company trying to get publicity for the 1920 film "Go and Get It" by having a guy run around in a gorilla costume. (or maybe just planted fake stories in anewspaper, I'm not exactly sure). I wonder if that sparked any sighting reports? This notes stage plays involving gorillas having existed too...

I should also note that overlaid bear tracks could make people think that a giant humanoid was walking around. For example, here is a picture of a confirmed overlaid bear track. Now imagine what it would look like if one of the bear's paws had been moved over a bit...
 
He is unlikely to give details about why he thinks BF existed. Crow is here to poke at skeptics, but not to ever allow for the reverse. It's an Internet hobby for him.

Crowlogic is a perfect name for himself. I'm a crow. I harass hawks. I dive-bomb them. It's my nature. Can't hawks harass you the same way? I'm too fast and clever, and they can't even figure out where I am. Isn't that some kind of an unfair advantage? I'm a crow. It's what I do. Don't you think there is there anything unfair about that? What's unfair, I'm a crow. I mean you are like a troll. What's a troll? They mess with things for the sake of messing. Trolls sound like jackasses. But you seem to do this same thing. You are completely wrong. I'm a crow not a troll. Can't you see my wings? Are you an idiot, or something? But won't you tell me what is behind this whole crow logic thing? No. I won't tell you because I'm a crow. Later, dude. Later, dude.
 
I'll say it differently...

I don't really know Crow's gender. You seem to know or "understand". Did Crow announce this in a post or something?
 
I'd imagine that those who argue that Bigfoot sighting reports would claim that the chances of them all being a combination of hoaxes, hallucinations, and misidentifications to be slim to none. How could all those witnesses be wrong?

However, there are two examples of cases where numerous reports were shown to be 100% wrong. First is the classic story of the escaped red panda in Holland, as noted on this site. Since the red panda was killed not far from the zoo, this means that all the sightings were either hoaxes, misidentifications, and/or hallucinations.

The second story is that of a children's radio personality, Uncle Don,cussing about kids without realizing that his microphone was still on. As this site will show you, the incident never happened, despite the claims of many.

Now apply that to Bigfoot...
 
1. 19th century newspapers are far less reliable than newspapers are today
Click to expand...

Not of today, imo. Maybe of 15 or 20 years ago, but not of today. The amount of fact checking of many stories seems to be quite low lately, with making a profit the priority, rather than the printing of factual stories.
 
There is an inherent problem with proving extinction, and that is; that in order for something to be 'Extinct', it must have at one time in history 'Existed'.

If one who claims 'Extinct' can not prove that the subject existed, then a critical thinker must conclude that the subject never existed to begin with.

Anyone claiming a North American animal is extinct, can pull out a volume of Audobon's Animals and point to the picture, and say, see this beast?, Audobon captured 4 of them, sent them back to New York, painted them, gave them to a University on this date, this beast is extinct.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Anyone claiming a North American animal is extinct, can pull out a volume of Audobon's Animals and point to the picture, and say, see this beast?, Audobon captured 4 of them, sent them back to New York, painted them, gave them to a University on this date, this beast is extinct.
Click to expand...

As an aside, I am curious which animals that he did draw are now classified as extinct. He did only birds and mammals (no amphibians, reptiles or invertebrates as primary subjects). I can't think of any mammals that are now gone (are there any?). I can count the Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, Heath Hen, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Labrador Duck, Great Auk, and the Eskimo Curlew. AFAIK, he did not draw the Dusky Seaside Sparrow which is now extinct.

Interestingly, he drew a bird which he called the Washington Eagle and it remains controversial as to what species this bird represents, if any.
 
Last edited:
This was the only one came to mind.
There are several extinct subspecies of pocket-gophers, hognosed skunks, and mice that are extinct.
Once widespread in the grasslands and western basins of North America, by 1987 Black-footed Ferrets were thought to be extinct in the wild. Captive animals were bred in an effort to save the species, and in 1991, some were reintroduced in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The Ferrets depend on prairie dogs, living in their tunnels and eating them, and the young are born in prairie dog tunnels. Black-footed Ferrets are mostly nocturnal and seldom seen. The best chance of seeing them is in mid- to late summer, after the young begin to be active aboveground.
Click to expand...

http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=189
 
Drewbot said:
There are several extinct subspecies of pocket-gophers, hognosed skunks, and mice that are extinct.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not really an answer to the question I posed. Did Audubon illustrate any mammal species or subspecies which are now classified as extinct? I think he did not. It was always a matter of what he found and was able to shoot. The dead animal specimen was his "life" model.

Drew, we lost some true mammal species as well as subspecies, of which Audubon did not illustrate. He was working at a time before Charles Darwin introduced his theories of speciation, and so there was no biological concept of what it means to be a species let alone a subspecies. His illustrations are so accurate and detailed that we can now look at them and make meaningful determinations of whether or not he was working with what we now classify as subspecies.

AFAIK, he did not miss any species (subspecies always being a subset of species) of mammal larger than a coyote. The devoted Bigfooter is forced to disagree and say that he simply didn't bag and illustrate a Bigfoot. That leads to questions about why the Native Americans and European settlers did not, or were not, able to convince him that a wild hairy bipedal ape was a genuine member of the biodiversity.
 
Last edited:
It is fascinating, reading this journal of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker hunter, how similar Bigfooters are in their emotional attachment to the elusive creatures they choose to track.
http://www.fishcrow.com/winter07.html


I always had the impression that woodpeckers are among the most intelligent birds, but I never realized just how intelligent they are until I started searching for ivorybills. This species is so adept at eluding humans that it seems to have the intelligence of a corvid. Among the other species, I have often noticed signs of intelligence in the red-bellied. There's one back in Virginia that comes to get peanuts when my wife calls its name (we unimaginatively named it Woody). This morning, I obtained footage of a red-bellied demonstrating intelligence while foraging in the tallows.
Click to expand...

9-29-06. Along with two non-birding friends, I paid a visit to Perch Lake, which is very interesting but difficult to reach. We were covered with spiders as we crossed through an area where fallen trees block the bayou. On February 22, I had a possible sighting in this area, which is rarely visited. There are hardwoods in this area, and I suspect it is used by the ivorybills.
Click to expand...

They even have the same problem with cameras.
12-3-06. Last season, I flushed an ivorybill from the river bank several times but never when I had the video camera running. It's going to be different this season. I have devised a "secret weapon" that makes it possible to aim the camera almost instantly, even while paddling the kayak. Later on, I'll post a photo of this set-up, which should allow me to get some good footage the next time I flush an ivorybill from the bank.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
They even have the same problem with cameras.
Click to expand...

Bingo! You came upon the modern avian equivalent of Bigfoot. Oh, we do have a four second video of a surviving Ivory-billed Woodpecker. So there you have it. Good evidence just like the PGF. What's the big problem?

The video shows a blobpecker. :D
 
"Bigfoot populations require vast amounts of land to remain elusive in. They typically dwell just behind rocks but are also sometimes playful, bounding into thick fogs and out of focus areas."
 
LTC8K6 said:
Not of today, imo. Maybe of 15 or 20 years ago, but not of today. The amount of fact checking of many stories seems to be quite low lately, with making a profit the priority, rather than the printing of factual stories.
Click to expand...

I had actually intended my phrasing to convey that no matter how reliable or unreliable one thinks newspapers are today, the old time papers were worse.

Oh, and I'd like to take this opportunity to correct an error I had made in an earlier post:

2. I was going to recommend checking out this thread regarding claims that Native American traditions and myths support the existence of Bigfoot, but I noticed that you've already read some of it. Despite their living off the land, Native Americans are not the all-knowing nature experts that stereotypes might have you believe. I highly doubt that anyone today would use this to argue that bears lose all their fur and gain supernatural powers after consuming human flesh.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What I would love to know is how does log account for all the sightings claims, footprints, etc, proclaimed by proponents of bigfoot's existence as being evidence since the extinction she conjectures in the early twentieth century. Has she said anything of it here? I don't think so. How about at the BFF? Has she ventured to tell the crowd there of the situation regarding the body of evidence?
 
Lodge-
was there one factor that you have thought might have led to their extinction?
was it disease? or drought? why would an animal that had live for many years, just suddenly die out in the early 20th century? were they tied to the Buffalo? or did pesticides destroy their egg-laying capability?
Which story do you believe-in?
 
Drewbot said:
Lodge-
was there one factor that you have thought might have led to their extinction?
was it disease? or drought? why would an animal that had live for many years, just suddenly die out in the early 20th century? were they tied to the Buffalo? or did pesticides destroy their egg-laying capability?
Which story do you believe-in?
Click to expand...

The government killed them. All except for the ones they've kept in a hidden compound, where they're being bred and trained as super-soldiers. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom