Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Resume]

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.

There is no bigfoot anything on file. Anywhere.
ETA: I'm not talking about anecdotes, as there are anecdotes for all kinds of silly things from Elvis to werewolves.

 

[Resume]

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.

Deleted

 

[Dinwar]

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.

To answer the highlighted part, it's thousands. There are hundreds in California alone (Jefferson, 1991--if you do California paleontology, you know this one!!). Nevada has even more. There are dozens of packrat middens--a single type of deposit--alone.

The problem that Chris and other "Gigantopithicus is in North America" people are going to run into is, as I said, depositional environments. It's a basic geological truism that the more modern the sediment, the more is exposed. We have less Paleocene stuff than we do Pleistocene stuff at the surface. And construction folks like to dig through sand a LOT more than they like to dig through limestone, so they tend to excavate a lot more Pleistocene stuff than practically anything else. It's very annoying to a dinosaur-lover like myself, but it's rather convenient for this discussion, as we have a remarkably good sampling of megafauna from the end of the Pliocene to the present due to paleontological resources monitoring activities.

Bear in mind that these activities DO NOT CARE about taxonomy. That comes later. They extract any bones they find. I can assure you, the monitors get excited by any scrap they see; it's rare enough to find even that much. If they'd found an ape tooth, things get worse. You are legally obligated to call the county coroner if you suspect human remains, for obvious reasons. We are extremely good at differentiating human remains from other remains (paleontologists ARE NOT archaeologists, no matter what my bosses say!). Anything that's human-ish but not human would be investigated more than any non-paleontologist/non-archaeologist can possibly imagine. Even if the people who found it wanted to keep it quite, the repository wouldn't. They are, according the curatorial agreements I've seen (which basically came from the institutions and were signed off on by my company), under no legal obligation to keep quiet about any of our finds. The whole bloody POINT of paleo monitoring is to ensure that the fossils get into the hands of the scientific community, after all (Eric Scott wrote an essay that touches on this once; it came up recently with the enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, and particularly the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act within the OPLMA).

That's not even getting into the two concentrat lagerstatten found in California, or the ones found elsewhere for that time period. If Gigantopithicus was around during the Pleistocene we'd have found remains in Rancho La Brea, for example. We've found everything else there, after all.

We're talking about one of the most well-sampled bits of lithology on Earth. I'm extremely confident that if something like this existed, we'd have seen evidence for it by now. Yes, new species are found--but nothing like an ape. Nothing even indicative of an ape, outside our own species (again, see Jefferson, 1991 to get a feel for how many humans have been found in California alone).

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.

You've obviously never been on a walk with me. My wife has dictated that only things lacking any squishy bits get to come home, unfortunately; still, you can find a surprising number of bones in your average woods. It's not that hard--any half-way descent book on skull collecting will provide really good advice on the subject. And it's a common enough hobby to warrant making and selling a surprising number of such books (I've got three, I think; depends on how you count them). There are a lot of people who do this sort of thing.

I know you're relaying the bigfooter stance on this; I'm not saying you believe it. I'm merely offering my perspective.

 

[eerok]

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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html

I think that Dinwar might have offered you this link before. It shows that bigfoot enthusiasts are not shy about co-opting creationist arguments... which makes sense, since both efforts cling desperately to a rejection of science.

Rather than commenting on that, however, is it possible for you to push your table off to the side and move on to whatever point you were trying to make?

 

[eerok]

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.

Bigfoot is implausible to the point that its existence is ridiculous. That isn't quite the same as "can't exist," though in practical terms it's pretty close. Anyway, bigfoot fossils are just one kind of evidence of which there is none, so it's hard to get excited about your remarks here.

There's a whole lot of things beyond fossils that we'd expect to have found if bigfoot existed. And just to keep things honest, the onus is not on skeptics to produce arguments, it's up to bigfoot enthusiasts to produce objective, unambiguous evidence... which so far has never happened.

 

[Dinwar]

Anyway, bigfoot fossils are just one kind of evidence of which there is none, so it's hard to get excited about your remarks here.

And to be clear: it's not just the lack of body fossils. There are organisms we can assume existed due to trace fossils, even if we don't know what the organism IS. Dolf Seilacher, for example, has made a career out of hunting down an animal that no one's ever seen. All we have are trace fossils called Paleodictyon, and much more recently their modern counterparts. The only way we knew it was there was through the traces it left behind.

There's also ecological impacts of invasions. Even if we don't have all the critters that invaded, we can usually tell that one was going on. We don't see that until humans get here, at least not to my knowledge.

There are other things we do to know the past, and none of them even suggest an ape came to North America before humans. Mostly because there was this ginormus ice sheet and it was bitterly cold up there; only apes that could make some sort of covering for themselves survived it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

This is the kind of battle one must face when informed opinion is attacked by denial.

OK, let's begin to learn about the photograph with all the skulls. I understand your misconception and I don't hold it against you.

Here are the facts. Everything you're looking at in that photo that represents a fossilized Hominid is manmade casting. Yep all of it. Why is that? Because Hominid fossils are so rare and hard to find they are considered national treasures. Guess where they keep them, like other treasures, the fossils are locked away in vaults far away from human eyes and contact.

In the photo you can see entire skulls yes? Another fact about these casts is that the casts were created to portray an accurate representation of the complete skull. The fossil used may have been as small as a piece of the skull cap or a section facial bone (think cheek, eye socket,partial jawbone, etc.) The rest of the skull is a representation of what it may have looked like complete. The actual fossil that inspired this representation may be the size of a half dollar coin.

I think since there are abundant dinosaur fossils people just kinda assume there are about as many Hominid fossils, but there aren't.

Let's look at the current fossil catalog on record. About 4000 finds that relate to an estimated 6000 individuals to describe between 15 to 21 different species of Man. (15-21 because many of the finds are still argued among scientists as to whether or not they are a new addition or not)

4000 finds. That sounds like alot doesn't it? Well, let's take a step back and see what exactly is a find. Is it an entire skeleton? Nope. It's a piece. A piece of a skeleton or a piece of a skull, a fragment. Each fragment is numbered and stored.

So let's say you go out and find 7 pieces of a skull in China. You assemble the pieces to complete the skull. Does that now count as 1 find? Nope, it counts as 7 finds that make up 1 skull. Congratulations though, you found Peking Man and the most complete fossil evidence to date we have for him.

4000 finds, let's make that 4000 fossil remains (pieces of skeletons). The adult human has 206 bones in our skeleton. Let's take 4000 and divide that by 206. We get 19.41 So that's about 19 and a half complete skeletons to account for the entire fossil record.

The claim that the fossil record of Man would fit on a pool table or casket was a claim made by Creationists and was correct at one time.
There have been more fossils discovered since then so the pool table will be decidedly too small now. A larger table would be required to house the current collection but certainly not the size of a railroad boxcar which has been suggested by some scientists.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is the kind of battle one must face when informed opinion is attacked by denial.

OK, let's begin to learn about the photograph with all the skulls. I understand your misconception and I don't hold it against you.

Here are the facts. Everything you're looking at in that photo that represents a fossilized Hominid is manmade casting. Yep all of it. Why is that? Because Hominid fossils are so rare and hard to find they are considered national treasures. Guess where they keep them, like other treasures, the fossils are locked away in vaults far away from human eyes and contact.

In the photo you can see entire skulls yes? Another fact about these casts is that the casts were created to portray an accurate representation of the complete skull. The fossil used may have been as small as a piece of the skull cap or a section facial bone (think cheek, eye socket,partial jawbone, etc.) The rest of the skull is a representation of what it may have looked like complete. The actual fossil that inspired this representation may be the size of a half dollar coin.

I think since there are abundant dinosaur fossils people just kinda assume there are about as many Hominid fossils, but there aren't.

Let's look at the current fossil catalog on record. About 4000 finds that relate to an estimated 6000 individuals to describe between 15 to 21 different species of Man. (15-21 because many of the finds are still argued among scientists as to whether or not they are a new addition or not)

4000 finds. That sounds like alot doesn't it? Well, let's take a step back and see what exactly is a find. Is it an entire skeleton? Nope. It's a piece. A piece of a skeleton or a piece of a skull, a fragment. Each fragment is numbered and stored.

So let's say you go out and find 7 pieces of a skull in China. You assemble the pieces to complete the skull. Does that now count as 1 find? Nope, it counts as 7 finds that make up 1 skull. Congratulations though, you found Peking Man and the most complete fossil evidence to date we have for him.

4000 finds, let's make that 4000 fossil remains (pieces of skeletons). The adult human has 206 bones in our skeleton. Let's take 4000 and divide that by 206. We get 19.41 So that's about 19 and a half complete skeletons to account for the entire fossil record.

The claim that the fossil record of Man would fit on a pool table or casket was a claim made by Creationists and was correct at one time.
There have been more fossils discovered since then so the pool table will be decidedly too small now. A larger table would be required to house the current collection but certainly not the size of a railroad boxcar which has been suggested by some scientists.

Clearly, you missed Dinwar's posts, or Eerok's posts, or The Shrike's posts. I don't hold it against you. Go back and read them, so that you can correct your continued misstatement before it becomes clear that you are just being dishonest.

Now, about the differences between the fossil evidence for hominids, and the fossil evidence for a previously undiscovered giant north american primate...?

(For that matter ANY evidence for a previously undiscovered giant north american primate...)

 

[Dinwar]

I think since there are abundant dinosaur fossils people just kinda assume there are about as many Hominid fossils, but there aren't.

I gave you a very long list of references proving that we have a remarkable record for hominid fossils. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away, and claiming that I assume anything about this is simply false. I've DEMONSTRATED it. Several times, in fact.

YOU ARE WRONG. Admit it and retain what shred of credibility is left to you.

I'm not going to bother to provide evidence again, not until you acknowledge the evidence already presented.

 

[desertgal]

<snipped for brevity>
The claim that the fossil record of Man would fit on a pool table or casket was a claim made by Creationists and was correct at one time.
There have been more fossils discovered since then so the pool table will be decidedly too small now. A larger table would be required to house the current collection but certainly not the size of a railroad boxcar which has been suggested by some scientists.

Dude, you are just wrong. This has been demonstrated to you. Are you so enthralled with your own reasoning that you don't focus on anything beyond your own posts?

Give it up.

(Although, thanks to your idiotic posts, I've actually learned something new from the others, so their efforts were not entirely in vain.)

 

[William Parcher]

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.

The rebuttal argument is not that Bigfoot can't exist it's that Bigfoot doesn't exist. The missing fossils argument is one item in a packaged argument. That package is led by the devastating argument that nobody has ever acquired a Bigfoot body or body part in many hundreds of years and countless opportunities to do so. It requires a stretch of the imagination and suspension of disbelief to accept Bigfoot without any flesh or fossils.

The lack of fossil record is not a useless argument but you always want to package it with the additional lack of non-fossilized biological material. It's a huge problem when you are missing both. It puts you right into the same realm as unicorns, fairies, mermaids, etc. because those things also lack both.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't so. Unless your definition of a large table is a very great deal different from mine.

That's a great link and I think it's very supportive to my argument.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Dude, you are just wrong. This has been demonstrated to you. Are you so enthralled with your own reasoning that you don't focus on anything beyond your own posts?

Give it up.

(Although, thanks to your idiotic posts, I've actually learned something new from the others, so their efforts were not entirely in vain.)

How has it been demonstrated to me that I am wrong? I've viewed the links, it'll fit.

 

[Resume]

How has it been demonstrated to me that I am wrong? I've viewed the links, it'll fit.

 

[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.

Bolding mine.

I've noticed this. Thanks for confirming.

 

[GT/CS]

How has it been demonstrated to me that I am wrong? I've viewed the links, it'll fit.

Don't just say it, prove it.
You continue to reinforce my original assessment.

 

[Dinwar]

How has it been demonstrated to me that I am wrong? I've viewed the links, it'll fit.

First, the fossil record for hominids is remarkably large. You're lying about the size, pure and simple. I've provided numerous links, which you've completely ignored. You are willfully refusing to examine the evidence.

Second, the volume of fossils is irrelevant. Only you and Creationists care about such a nonsensical metric. Real researchers--honest ones--care about the QUALITY of the record. And we have a remarkably robust record for hominids, as well as for the Pleistocene of North America. This isn't an assumption I'm making based off of other fossil records; this is my conclusion after careful study of this record for several years. So you're completely off-base regarding my reasoning as well.

Forget fossils. Fossils are a complete red herring.

Not quite. Just a difference in focus. It's an attempt to get around the asinine post-hoc "Bigfoot is skittish and hides" nonsense. Skittish or not, it'd leave remains, and even if we don't find modern remains we would expect to find fossil remains.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I gave you a very long list of references proving that we have a remarkable record for hominid fossils. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away, and claiming that I assume anything about this is simply false. I've DEMONSTRATED it. Several times, in fact.

YOU ARE WRONG. Admit it and retain what shred of credibility is left to you.

I'm not going to bother to provide evidence again, not until you acknowledge the evidence already presented.

Your remarkably long list of links were about Human evolution which is not under discussion. Where are the Hominid fossils? Got Hominid fossils? Show me this gigantic collection if you can and I'll admit my error. I'll apologize, beg your forgiveness, and proclaim you to be of superior intellect. Simply show me.

Remember, the focus is on Hominid fossils. Where are they? They're not in your links.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Your remarkably long list of links were about Human evolution which is not under discussion. Where are the Hominid fossils? Got Hominid fossils? Show me this gigantic collection if you can and I'll admit my error. I'll apologize, beg your forgiveness, and proclaim you to be of superior intellect. Simply show me.

Remember, the focus is on Hominid fossils. Where are they? They're not in your links.

...and there go the goalpoasts. Again.

 

[Robrob]

Remember, the focus is on Hominid fossils. Where are they? They're not in your links.

I thought the topic was Bigfoot?