Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Slowvehicle]

Name 1 fossil record of man that the species was named from a complete fossilized skeleton.
Can you?, Just 1?

And what, pray tell, has your sudden claim of "complete" fossils to do with the wealth of probative fossils evidencing the development of modern humans?

For that matter, where do you think you specified, or implied, "complete fossils"?

Or what "complete fossils" tell us that the indicative/diagnostic features of what you apparently consider worthy of derision as "partial skeletons" do not?

What do you, personally, know about what can be determined form bone fragments?

Your claim of the paucity of human ancestor fossils was demonstrated incorrect, then dishonest; your attempt to recover by moving the goalposts and pretending "that's where they were all along" does you no credit at all.

Now take a stab at comparing the vast horde of evidence provided by what you deride as "partial skeletons" with the absolute lack of any evidence for the existence of a heretofore undiscovered giant north american primate...

 

[Vortigern99]

I just wanna be sure of what I'm learning from you.

I'm neither your employee nor your teacher. I have no obligation to provide this information, and I don't understand why it matters whether each skull in the Smithsonian display I provided a picture of, upthread, is fossil, bone, or cast resin copy. Each specimen is a discrete unit of data. What else is important and why?

 

[RayG]

So what size table would you say would fit the entire fossil record of man?

Significantly larger than the one for bigfoot?

RayG

 

[desertgal]

I know nothing about the human fossil record, but after reading just Dinwar's posts here, Chris, I think you should give up on the "table" argument. It's not looking good for you. Just sayin'.

 

[Dinwar]

And there are zero (0) pieces of fossil, bone, skull, hair, tooth, claw, ****, tissue, jizz, piss, laid out on the bigfoot table.

I just want to point out htat I've got fossil poop and urine. I've got a chunk of it on my desk, to show high schoolers that come into the office. I always wait until after I've passed it around before I tell them what it is.

Never seen fossil jizz that I know of....Maybe some shark or octopi sperm packets, but I can't be certain (not being something that generally fossilizes, I've never paid much attention to them).

...and I don't understand why it matters whether each skull in the Smithsonian display I provided a picture of, upthread, is fossil, bone, or cast resin copy.

Only thing I can think of is, he's building up to claim that the photo only contains a handful of fossils, and the rest are replications of those fossils.

To be clear, most museums contain numerous casts. I've used various methods to cast fossils. It's common practice in paleontology to make molds of any fossils important to your research and amenable to making molds (ie, not carbon films or the like); that way you can take the mold home with you, and not the irreplaceable fossil. It's done under suitably controlled conditions, and using some fairly standard methodologies. Dental putty--the stuff that comes in a yellow jar and blue jar, then you mix it together to make a green putty--works surprisingly well, only don't put it on carry-on luggage for air travel (trust me on this...That got downright exciting).

Thing is, you only need one or two copies in your collections (and the second is generally in the researcher's own private collections, not the institution's). It makes no sense to replicate the fossils ad infinitum; this isn't a free process, our time isn't free, and we only do it when we have a reason to do so. Trust me, they DO NOT use human remains to practice on. I've got a crinoid holdfast that I practice on, personally. Maybe some scraps of jaw or something from a non-human mammal would be used for practice.

I have heard of 3D printers used to replicate bones, but again, it's time and money. If it were free I'd have a book stand made of a copy of my own skeleton right now (I really want one--how many people get to see what their own fossils will look like? ). Plus, they're relatively rare. There's no point, really; you have to see the original fossil anyway, so printing it isn't equivalent. Paleontology involves all five senses.

 

[Robrob]

So what size table would you guess it would take to fit the complete fossil record of man? 8x14? 6x24?

Hear that sound?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

1) Unless you believe that Gigantopithicus as Homo sapiens sapiens, the presence of humans in North America OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS LATER is irrelevant to this discussion.

2) No. Just....no. We can make VERY rough estimates, but with the amount of diversity in hominid species it's all just a guess.

3) And yet you can't find a single solitary tooth of any hominid other than H. sapiens sapiens in North America.

Your evidence is still at 0. You've yet to present a single datum.

If by "a few" you mean >50% of the skeleton in many cases.

1.) I suggest much more came here from Asia other than humans. There was certainly a path to enable travel from Asia.
2.) Rough estimates? I agree that the estimates may not be exact but wouldn't you think they would be close? Giganto may have not been 3 meters tall, possibly more or less yes? It still matches descriptions of modern day Bigfoot sighting descriptions.
3.) Fossils aren't easy to find. As you know it takes very special conditions for bone to fossilize. One can hope the porcupines of North America may have something stashed away in a cave somewhere though.

I agree that some (very few) hominid fossil finds have included greater than 50% of a skeletal structure.

Do you agree that most species are documented with much less or even just a partial skull or skull cap? Like "Java Man"?

I'm not going to teach you paleontology. I will say that I draw my paycheck in this field, and that in my expert opinion you are completely and utterly wrong. If anyone wishes to know more, we can start a different thread on the topic. You're talking nonsense here, pure and simple.

It seems you must be a jack of all trades. Scientist, Teacher, Lab Research Professional, DNA reclamation expert. A very interesting teaching method as well I've noticed. I'm sorry but I don't believe you. A marathon post is not important to me, the content is what matters.

Of course. I demonstrated he was wrong, in a way that couldn't be denied--so of course he changed the statement to make it look like I haven't addressed the issue. I wasn't expecting otherwise, to be honest. I've seen it in the Shroud thread, with DeathDart, with Creationists, etc.

I think this was for another member. But, I've not changed my original position. I still say the entire fossil record of man will fit on a large table. My guess is a 6x12. I've asked you but you seem to not want to guess? Why not? Do you feel the entire fossil record for man would take a warehouse to hold it or what? How many Square feet would it take? 20,000? 100,000? What's your estimation of the size of the entire fossil record of man? Just the real stuff, not the models or cast molds.

(As an aside, this disproves nothing I've said about DNA testing--blood is still a bad way to get DNA, blood on a boot is worse yet, and dung is still a perfectly viable way to get it. It simply means I've got more experience addressing degradation of organic remains [or, as we fossil-jocks put it, taphonomy] than a biologist would be expected to have.)

Well at least we've come a little way forward. Now blood is a "bad way to get DNA" instead of the previous. I know there are many other ways to get DNA as there are newer technologies now than existed when I was in the field. For DNA testing we had to draw blood from the subjects. Stool was never considered for DNA collection sample at that time. Now, I'm sure the process would be a quick cotton swab to the inside of the mouth for DNA sampling.

There are, simply put, far more human fossils that can fit on a billiard table (the actual Creationist claim). But that doesn't support the argument that scientists know nothing, so of course Chris changed it. He has to--he's starting with the conclusion, not the data. Compare that to me and the rest of us rational folks: I've given specific ways to prove me wrong, including references. If he can produce one Gigantopithicus fossil--one tooth--from North America I'll admit I was wrong, and accept that there is in fact paleontological evidence for bigfoot. It makes me no difference; my self-worth isn't tied to the existence of any single species, and knowing that there were apes here would have a lot of practical consequences for my job. I wouldn't hesitate to admit I was wrong. And I don't hesitate to give specifics on how to prove me wrong.

Well, actually I was thinking of a 6x12 conference table, that's my estimation. But I'm open to suggestions as to the size table that would be required. 8x12? 10x12?

About Giganto fossils in North America, none have been found. I agree with your conclusion. You are 100% correct. I merely suggest Bigfoot closely matches the description of Giganto.

If a type subject is ever brought in, it may have absolutely nothing to do with Giganto whatsoever I freely admit this.

 

[xtifr]

That's true Mike, only a few fossilized remnants make up the entire record for Giganto. Similarly, only one large table of fossil remnants describes the entire fossil record for man.

Not only is the highlighted part completely untrue, as has been pointed out by several people, but it's completely irrelevant, as I mentioned last time.

Let me ask another question: how many human bones do we have? Not fossils--bones! Bigfoot is not, supposedly, a creature that went extinct several million years ago. It is a creature that, supposedly, walks and breaths today.

Unless Bigfoot's ancestors swam to the Americas, they must have come across a land bridge, which means they've been here for at least 10,000 years. That's 10,000 years of leaving bodies (unless they're immortal or something). Up to and including the present day.

Forget fossils. Fossils are a complete red herring. Where are the Bigfoot bones? This creature has supposedly spread itself across the US--even (supposedly) as far as Kentucky! Even if we make the much more logical assumption that BF is limited to the Pacific Northwest (frankly, even if Bigfoot exists, I find the idea that it can be found in Kentucky laughable), it's been there for 10,000 years or more, and we should see bones. But not a hint of one has ever been found. If it really has spread to Kentucky and even Florida, we should see lots of bones. But, in fact, we've found exactly zero.

Don't tell me about human fossils. Bigfoot isn't extinct, so, just as with humans, we should have a whole lot of bones. The number of human bones we know of will not fit on anything that can reasonably be described as a table.

How many deer bones do we have? How many Grizzly? How many wolf? Not fossils--bones! How many other large land animals have been in North America for at least 10,000 years without leaving a single bone to be found?

If Bigfoot is not extinct, the whole fossil issue is totally irrelevant!

Chris, even if you were right (and you're not), you're still wrong.

 

[dmaker]

Cue the ' how many times have you seen bear bones in the woods' argument from Chris. It's a favorite in the Bigfooter repertoire.

 

[The Shrike]

Chris is engaging in the time-honored Creationist tactic of suggesting something that is not well represented in the fossil record and from that concluding that the fossil record is useless for deduction. When the error of his specific example was illustrated, he panicked and moved the goalpost (to someplace irrelevant, like out of bounds to continue the metaphor) thereby engaging in a time-honored tactic of purveyors of pseudoscience and magical thinking.

Any paleontologist will tell you that the fossil record is incomplete. The ignorant focus on that, missing completely that there are things called "paleontologists" whose job it is to use the fossil record for scientific exploits, such as reconstructing the history of life on our planet. Depending on your question you want to ask, the fossil record can be rich and robust, providing extraordinary insights.

One such rich fossil record is that of large mammals of the Quaternary Period in North America. Of the thousands of fossils of megafauna from dozens (hundreds?) of different sites on this continent, there is nary a single tooth of a Gigantopithecus. Now a single tooth is all that is needed to identify that genus (that's what diagnostic means - the minimum amount of something necessary to be absolutely sure what it is), and we have more than 1000 of these teeth known from China, Vietnam, and eastern India. Lord knows how many others were found through the centuries and ground to powder in apothecaries all over Southeast Asia.

Now, would it make sense that an animal whose teeth have been easy to find in Asia would for some reason have its teeth be hard (so far, impossible) to find in North America? It might, if the Pleistocene fossil record for large mammals was really scanty, but that record isn't scanty. It's rich. So there is no reason to postulate that Gigantopithecus ever dispersed to North America, and it's the fossil record of the beast that tells us so.

To suggest a Giganto - or anything like it - dispersal to North America while hand-waving away the fossil history of such creatures is untenable.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not only is the highlighted part completely untrue, as has been pointed out by several people, but it's completely irrelevant, as I mentioned last time.

Let me ask another question: how many human bones do we have? Not fossils--bones! Bigfoot is not, supposedly, a creature that went extinct several million years ago. It is a creature that, supposedly, walks and breaths today.

Unless Bigfoot's ancestors swam to the Americas, they must have come across a land bridge, which means they've been here for at least 10,000 years. That's 10,000 years of leaving bodies (unless they're immortal or something). Up to and including the present day.

Forget fossils. Fossils are a complete red herring. Where are the Bigfoot bones? This creature has supposedly spread itself across the US--even (supposedly) as far as Kentucky! Even if we make the much more logical assumption that BF is limited to the Pacific Northwest (frankly, even if Bigfoot exists, I find the idea that it can be found in Kentucky laughable), it's been there for 10,000 years or more, and we should see bones. But not a hint of one has ever been found. If it really has spread to Kentucky and even Florida, we should see lots of bones. But, in fact, we've found exactly zero.

Don't tell me about human fossils. Bigfoot isn't extinct, so, just as with humans, we should have a whole lot of bones. The number of human bones we know of will not fit on anything that can reasonably be described as a table.

How many deer bones do we have? How many Grizzly? How many wolf? Not fossils--bones! How many other large land animals have been in North America for at least 10,000 years without leaving a single bone to be found?

If Bigfoot is not extinct, the whole fossil issue is totally irrelevant!

Chris, even if you were right (and you're not), you're still wrong.

My statement was that the entire fossil record of man will fit on one large table. I guess you'll have to color me from Missouri because you'll have to "show me" before I change my mind.

Bones. OK, I agree there are no Bigfoot bones on file. What do bones have to do with the price of tea in China? If you need me to admit you are correct that there are no Bigfoot bones on file, I will. You are correct.

 

[Robrob]

Cue the ' how many times have you seen bear bones in the woods' argument from Chris. It's a favorite in the Bigfooter repertoire.

Let me guess, he'll claim bear/bigfoot bones somehow decompose more rapidly than other bones?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris is engaging in the time-honored Creationist tactic of suggesting something that is not well represented in the fossil record and from that concluding that the fossil record is useless for deduction. When the error of his specific example was illustrated, he panicked and moved the goalpost (to someplace irrelevant, like out of bounds to continue the metaphor) thereby engaging in a time-honored tactic of purveyors of pseudoscience and magical thinking.

Any paleontologist will tell you that the fossil record is incomplete. The ignorant focus on that, missing completely that there are things called "paleontologists" whose job it is to use the fossil record for scientific exploits, such as reconstructing the history of life on our planet. Depending on your question you want to ask, the fossil record can be rich and robust, providing extraordinary insights.

One such rich fossil record is that of large mammals of the Quaternary Period in North America. Of the thousands of fossils of megafauna from dozens (hundreds?) of different sites on this continent, there is nary a single tooth of a Gigantopithecus. Now a single tooth is all that is needed to identify that genus (that's what diagnostic means - the minimum amount of something necessary to be absolutely sure what it is), and we have more than 1000 of these teeth known from China, Vietnam, and eastern India. Lord knows how many others were found through the centuries and ground to powder in apothecaries all over Southeast Asia.

Now, would it make sense that an animal whose teeth have been easy to find in Asia would for some reason have its teeth be hard (so far, impossible) to find in North America? It might, if the Pleistocene fossil record for large mammals was really scanty, but that record isn't scanty. It's rich. So there is no reason to postulate that Gigantopithecus ever dispersed to North America, and it's the fossil record of the beast that tells us so.

To suggest a Giganto - or anything like it - dispersal to North America while hand-waving away the fossil history of such creatures is untenable.

Certainly the fossil record is incomplete. There's no Bigfoot in there. (Unless Giganto pans out)

 

[Robrob]

Bones. OK, I agree there are no Bigfoot bones on file. What do bones have to do with the price of tea in China?

Every large mammal has left a fossil record, with the exception of Bigfoot. This confuses you?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Maybe if the fossil record was near complete, it would useful in the argument that Bigfoot can't exist, but it doesn't seem to be the case yet.

Also, Gigantopithecus being bipedal is a strong assumption and one that I've only seen Bigfoot enthusiasts make. I guess it could have been bipedal, but it's pretty unlikely considering how it was a pongid and not a hominin. The fact that it's in a different subfamily from every known bipedal primate to date is often overlooked.

 

[GT/CS]

Every large mammal has left a fossil record, with the exception of Bigfoot. This confuses you?

He's playing a semantic game of fossils vs. bones.

 

[dmaker]

Let me guess, he'll claim bear/bigfoot bones somehow decompose more rapidly than other bones?

No. I think it was first entered into Footer canon by either Krantz or Bindernagel. Basically it goes along the lines of the fact that people find bones in the forest for known animals, like bears, so infrequently suggests that the chance of people coming across Sasquatch bones is next to nil. Since, I guess, Bigfeets are even rarer than bears. It comes up a lot in discussions in other places.

Of course there is no indication of how the "fact" that people finding bear remains is rare is never mentioned nor is the simple fact that bear bones have indeed been found and do exist. And whatnot...

 

[Slowvehicle]

My statement was that the entire fossil record of man will fit on one large table. I guess you'll have to color me from Missouri because you'll have to "show me" before I change my mind.

Bones. OK, I agree there are no Bigfoot bones on file. What do bones have to do with the price of tea in China? If you need me to admit you are correct that there are no Bigfoot bones on file, I will. You are correct.

You must have already forgotten the photograph showing the partial collection of skulls from the Smithsonian alone. That, or you are claiming that you, personally, will need to be taken by the hand and allowed to feel the fossils, all the fossils, or you will continue your demonstrably false refrain.

Go back, and look at that photograph. Right. Photograph. Have any of you even that for your heretofore undiscovered giant north american primate?

No you do not. What you have is: No bones. No fossils. No middens. No remains. No spoor. No tracks. No trails. No traces. No photographs. No evidence, in fact, at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

bolding mine.

Yes he did. But just because a good man was taken in by a hoaxer, it doesn't mean he was wrong about everything he did does it? When one completes a work such as "The Origin of Man" I think it a little dismissive to label his entire career as wasted just because a dishonest person told him a convincing lie.

No one said anything about Krantz's "entire career". You made that up.

Think of what he might have accomplished in the real world with the time and resources he wasted chasing a hoax in a fake world.

 

[Resume]

Maybe if the fossil record was near complete, it would useful in the argument that Bigfoot can't exist, but it doesn't seem to be the case yet.

It's unnecessary. The complete lack of anything corroborative is what you need to consider in any argument concerning this cryptid.