Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
As I told you before, we already covered this more than once.
The Pleistocene fossil register for bigfoot country is quite richer than the tar pits. Megafauna remains at caves, river and lake deposits... You can check this by yourself either by googling or by using this site`s search function with "Pleistocene fossil Pacific Northwest" keywords.
Acient remains from apes and hominids (including those who dwelled at forests) were found at caves, fluvial and laccustrine deposits. All these potential preservation sites are found within bigfoot country and I think they were more studied than their counterparts at Africa and Asia. No bigfoot-like creature bones...
Try checking the informations spreaded within bigfootery outside from bigfootery. You`ll see that quite often they are not correct.
As for the sightings given their nature and the fact that at the moment not a single one has been confirmed as real... Not to mention that, assuming these animals are real, sighting reports would only reflect the current status of the population (assuming you managed to create a good methodology to remove the bad data points). A population quite likely under stress by anthropic activity, whose numbers have been decreaed when compared to the past.
The Pleistocene fossil register for bigfoot country is quite richer than the tar pits. Megafauna remains at caves, river and lake deposits... You can check this by yourself either by googling or by using this site`s search function with "Pleistocene fossil Pacific Northwest" keywords.
Acient remains from apes and hominids (including those who dwelled at forests) were found at caves, fluvial and laccustrine deposits. All these potential preservation sites are found within bigfoot country and I think they were more studied than their counterparts at Africa and Asia. No bigfoot-like creature bones...
Try checking the informations spreaded within bigfootery outside from bigfootery. You`ll see that quite often they are not correct.
As for the sightings given their nature and the fact that at the moment not a single one has been confirmed as real... Not to mention that, assuming these animals are real, sighting reports would only reflect the current status of the population (assuming you managed to create a good methodology to remove the bad data points). A population quite likely under stress by anthropic activity, whose numbers have been decreaed when compared to the past.
Last edited:
Friend, if confusalating the units in an equation was "the stupidest mistake" I had made ever made, I would think I was in fat city!
Makaya, in the pnw region, how many days, on average (please state the total # of animals in the study(ies), shortest time, longest time, mean, and standard deviation) does it take for a deer (whitetail, blacktail or mule) to completely decompose, including the major bones?
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Friend, if confusalating the units in an equation was "the stupidest mistake" I had made ever made, I would think I was in fat city!
Don't worry I am still young, I have many great mistakes still to make.
Canandaigua,
Tioughnioga,
Kanadasaga,
Canaseraga,
and, oddly enough,
Keuka and Cayuga, which people seem to think are pronounced exactly the same.
Correa, im aware of the rich fossil history found in the caves. However, caves are the only hope for an animal to fossilize itself. Since we have never lived side by side with another hominid, we cant say how rare this thing is. Sasquatch could possibly be the rarest animal to ever live.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
What? The geologist you are talking to just outlined a number of scenarios whereby living things become fossilized in sediments that don't involve caves.
Wrong. Please don't state as fact something which you do not understand. Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis are two of thye most recent examples to the contrary.
Please outline the logic by which Bigfoots would be any rarer than known animals for which we have specimens.
Kitz, and do we have both species by the truckload? No we dont.
Bigfoots, perhaps a couple 100, isolated from each other, long living, slow reproducing , would be incredibly difficult to find. Assume they live 50 years, bones wouldnt last that long. There are no known natural predators it has.
Bigfoots, perhaps a couple 100, isolated from each other, long living, slow reproducing , would be incredibly difficult to find. Assume they live 50 years, bones wouldnt last that long. There are no known natural predators it has.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,480
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,480
Surprise attack from behind and fangs deep in the neck. It's over pretty fast for the Boss.
Dude, sharing the same ecological niche is grounds for resentment and attack.
Young Bigfoots must be incredibly vulnerable to predation and territorial attacks from other big animals. Any Bigfoot that surprises a mother bear with cubs could get torn apart.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
The problem with the whole thing still seems to be that if bigfoots are as rare and elusive as Makaya takes them to be, that means that most of the sightings and other evidence must be bunk. So now we're faced with a question of how we evaluate sightings.
1. I saw a big hairy man-like creature loping across a hayfield in Whitehall. Sorry, dude, bigfoots wouldnt live there, so you must have seen something else.
2. I saw a big hairy man-like creature slipping into the deep northwest woods. Wow, dude, that must have been a bigfoot, because they really could live there.
Do you see the problem here?
1. I saw a big hairy man-like creature loping across a hayfield in Whitehall. Sorry, dude, bigfoots wouldnt live there, so you must have seen something else.
2. I saw a big hairy man-like creature slipping into the deep northwest woods. Wow, dude, that must have been a bigfoot, because they really could live there.
Do you see the problem here?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
If you really want to sit down and think about it then yeah, it's a pickle. For young makaya and those like him it is no pickle at all.
You saw a big hairy man-like creature loping across a hayfield in Whitehall? It was a deformed human. No fuss, no muss.
You saw a big hairy man-like creature loping across a hayfield in Whitehall? It was a deformed human. No fuss, no muss.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Actually my theory is that after all the fuss about Patty and all those expeditions, the bigfoots hightailed it east to get away from the publicity. They rode the rods to Whitehall, where they blended into the local population. See that guy out ice fishing with the ratty down coat, the wool hat and the size 16 Sorels? Remember those railroad men Bob Dylan sang about, who'd smoke your eyelids and punch your cigarette? Yep. Squatches!
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Where on earth do you get this from? How do you know what a cougar could kill? Seeing as how cougars stalk their pray and use surprise to their benefit I think a cougar could easily kill a bigfoot or a gorilla.
Obviously this is pure speculation. This reminds me of the show that would use computers and special effects shops to pit a hippo Vs. a Shark and other such odd battles. The fact remains that until you can establish that bigfoot even exists you have no idea what can kill it. Work on making it live first.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I enjoy the Bigfoot enthusiast pastime of speculating on Bigfoot vs bear encounters. It's like Star Wars geeks trying to hash out who's the most powerful Force user. Here is a video by the late bear eaten Timothy Treadwell of two grizzly bears opening up a can of whoopass on eachother:
Grizzly Bear V.S. Grizzly Bear: Best Fight Ever Recorded
Imagine diaper butt Patty being on the wrong end of that. There would be little Patty bits all over the place.
(Note the interesting maneuver employed by the top bear around 1:10.
)