Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[The Shrike]

Okay, lemme see if I can get us back on track while continuing with the recent theme of this thread:

Perhaps the most important piece of evidence arguing against the reality of bigfoot is its absence from the fossil/recent remains record. Here is why I think that:

1) Bigfoot is reported to be an animal of large body size with a distribution that includes almost the whole of temperate forest ecoregions in North America.

2) Other animals of similar (and smaller) body size - including top predators that would have been nowhere abundant within their distribution - are well known from dozens-hundreds of fossil sites in North America.

3) In addition to its purported current distribution in North America, bigfoot presumably dispersed to North America from Eurasia via the Bering Land Bridge at some (or multiple) times during the Pleistocene. Despite many rich fossil finds in Beringia and northeastern Asia, we have no evidence of anything like a bigfoot there either.

Considering 1–3, the most parsimonious explanation for the lack of bigfoot fossil remains from anywhere in its current reported or suspected historical distribution is that there never were any bigfoots to leave such remains behind.

Okay, have at it then.

 

[Resume]

Okay, lemme see if I can get us back on track while continuing with the recent theme of this thread:

Perhaps the most important piece of evidence arguing against the reality of bigfoot is its absence from the fossil/recent remains record. Here is why I think that:

1) Bigfoot is reported to be an animal of large body size with a distribution that includes almost the whole of temperate forest ecoregions in North America.

2) Other animals of similar (and smaller) body size - including top predators that would have been nowhere abundant within their distribution - are well known from dozens-hundreds of fossil sites in North America.

3) In addition to its purported current distribution in North America, bigfoot presumably dispersed to North America from Eurasia via the Bering Land Bridge at some (or multiple) times during the Pleistocene. Despite many rich fossil finds in Beringia and northeastern Asia, we have no evidence of anything like a bigfoot there either.

Considering 1–3, the most parsimonious explanation for the lack of bigfoot fossil remains from anywhere in its current reported or suspected historical distribution is that there never were any bigfoots to leave such remains behind.

Okay, have at it then.

While I would certainly agree with the gist of this post, I would hasten to add that exactly no remains of any type further bears out your most parsimonious explanation.

Trouble is, bigfoot claimants are having none of that. They "seen 'em" and golly that's good enough.

 

[Dinwar]

While I would certainly agree with the gist of this post, I would hasten to add that exactly no remains of any type further bears out your most parsimonious explanation.

Agreed.

The most important evidence against bigfoot is the complete lack of live specimens, or in fact any solid evidence for their existence at all. They are not, as far as science and taxonomy are concerned, alive today.

The lack of bigfoot fossils in areas where we would expect them, due to remarkable preservation, being located within the hypothesized range, etc., means that they were never here to begin with. As The Shrike said, we have remains of organisms of similar size, ecology, etc. from within the hypothesized range of bigfoot, so we would expect to see something.

This is the part where Jodie began to...discuss...the abilities of paleontologists in regards to identification of fossils. Suffice to say, we can. At the very least, we can certainly differentiate between hominids and the artiodactyles, camels, equids, mammoths, sloths, and other mammalian megafauna of the Pleistocene. Even if we assume that paleontologists are inept at differentiating between hominid species (an assumption not born out by the evidence, and which would be mitigated at any rate by the legal obligations requiring us to consult with archaeologists and coroners at the first suspicion of dealing with human remains), we'd certainly be able to tell if the thing we were looking at was a horse or a human. Which means that Gigantopithicus remains would, at the very least, be seen as an enormous extension of hominid occupation of North America to a point before our own species arived.

The presence of Gigantopithicus remains in Asia means only that we have a novel hominid in Asia. Without supporting evidence we simply cannot accept the hypothesis that Gigantopithicus is bigfoot, nor can we accept the argument that Gigantopithicus crossed a land bridge into North America.

What bigfoot believers are doing has a name in evolutionary biology: a Just So Story. They've taken a brief look at the evidence, and are fitting it to the story they want told. These are very seductive, because they provide an answer. They're also extremely dangerous, for the same reason. People who buy into this Just So Story stop looking for evidence. They've got their answer, after all, and humans tend to not look past the point where we've answered the question. Scientists have learend, through bitter experience, to treat these Just So Stories as working hypotheses. This story creates a simple test: if it's true, we should have Gigantopithicus fossils in North America. We do not. Therefore, the hypothesis can be dismissed.

 

[William Parcher]

Okay, have at it then.

Any Creationist Bigfooter would say that your arguments are nonstarters. How many Bigfooters are also Creationists? Also, they are actually prevented from challenging you in open forum at BFF because they will be slapped for talking religion. So they may proceed to argue in odd roundabout ways because they are unable to use the counterargument that they really want to use.

Evolution is only a theory.
The history of the Earth may not be what you think it is.
The fossil record may not be what you think it is.
Bigfoot may not be the creature that you think it would be.

These counterarguments are based on a world with a Creating God whose work is generally described in the Book of Genesis.

 

[The Shrike]

^I had "fossil/recent remains" in there.

I guess we need to somehow formalize our taxonomy of remains, and Dinwar please set me straight if I'm reinventing a wheel with some kind of trapezoid.

I see the different types of remains we should consider as "depositional" and "non-depositional". In other words, is this something - fossil or not - that we dug out of sediments or tar pits or woodrat middens or sphagnum bog, etc? If so, I'd call it depositional remains. It wasn't collected on purpose (except by the woodrat); it's just some piece of an animal that was fortuitously discovered when someone poked around in the right place.

I contrast that with non-depositional remains, and in this category I consider all the bigfoots that should have been speared by paleoindians and turned into talismans or other spiritual relics, all the bigfoots that should have been shot by settlers and farmers protecting their chickens, all the bigfoots that should have been struck by cars and trains, and all the bigfoots that should have died and had their remains recovered prior to burial (intentional by the bigfoots or otherwise).

There doesn't appear to me to be a hard and fast temporal rule that divides these two types of remains, but depositional remains would tend to be older and non-depositional more recent.

 

[Resume]

Any Creationist Bigfooter would say that your arguments are nonstarters. How many Bigfooters are also Creationists? Also, they are actually prevented from challenging you in open forum at BFF because they will be slapped for talking religion. So they may proceed to argue in odd roundabout ways because they are unable to use the counterargument that they really want to use.

Evolution is only a theory.
The history of the Earth may not be what you think it is.
The fossil record may not be what you think it is.
Bigfoot may not be the creature that you think it would be.

These counterarguments are based on a world with a Creating God whose work is generally described in the Book of Genesis.

As The Shrike pointed out, the lack of "non-depositional" remains covers these objections. Unless these animals are supernatural, they would have left signs of their existence up to and including whole bodies. To argue otherwise is ludicrous, displaying a complete lack of knowledge concerning the human population and exploitation of the North American continent.

 

[Dinwar]

Evolution is only a theory.
The history of the Earth may not be what you think it is.
The fossil record may not be what you think it is. Bigfoot may not be the creature that you think it would be.

True. That's the path Jodie took in the removed section of the thread, particularly the highlighted portion. That said, these arguments come across as rather absurd when addressed to people who study this for a living. It always boils down to someone admitting they know very little about the field, yet feeling perfectly comfortable telling the experts how to do their job. I'm not saying it happened with Jodie: I'm saying it's the endgame of ALL such discussions in my experience. There was a guy here that tried to argue that mosasaurs became whales, and refused to acknowledge that there was a great deal of evidence against it because 1) experts know nothing, and 2) gross anatomy was similar between the taxa.

I guess we need to somehow formalize our taxonomy of remains, and Dinwar please set me straight if I'm reinventing a wheel with some kind of trapezoid.

I'm not familiar with such a classification. That said, I can certainly see the utility. One of my "Pull pin, run away" questions is "If we find a mammoth with a spear point in it, do the paleos get it or do the archaeos?"

There doesn't appear to me to be a hard and fast temporal rule that divides these two types of remains, but depositional remains would tend to be older and non-depositional more recent.

Not necessarily. There are packrat middens that are 5,000 years old--certainly well witin the timeframe of human occupation of North America. I'm unaware of any human remains being found in them, but that's because humans tended to burn them to drive out the rats, which were then eaten.

I would say that the dividing line is more blurry. If we find any remains of bigfoot, they tell us that the creature was alive in that time and at that place. Based on how it was found and anatomy, we can make some hypotheses about when it arived and where it lived (for example, if we find a live bigfoot that's identical to Giganto, we can start talking about land bridges and the like). That said, artifacts make such interpretations nightmarishly hard. There were extensive trade routes through North America in the past, and precious artifacts were often kept for remarkably long times as I understand it (note: I'm no expert in this; I'm giving what I've learned while working with archaeologists, but I'm not pretending in any way to be one). What that means is you can easily end up with a piece of a critter far from where it lived and long after it died. Bone is particularly durable, so it's particularly volnerable to such taphonomic processes. Think of all the mammoth ivory we have in museums, and how often museums loan fossils out. People have always been people.

 

[The Shrike]

^That's the point I tried to make, Dinwar: the line would be really blurry. You sound more cautious than I am about making even broad generalizations regarding age of the different types of remains; rightly so I suppose.

 

[Dinwar]

You sound more cautious than I am about making even broad generalizations regarding age of the different types of remains;

That's kinda funny--I get in trouble for being too willing to draw conclusions on too little data.

 

[William Parcher]

As The Shrike pointed out, the lack of "non-depositional" remains covers these objections. Unless these animals are supernatural, they would have left signs of their existence up to and including whole bodies. To argue otherwise is ludicrous, displaying a complete lack of knowledge concerning the human population and exploitation of the North American continent.

Telling a Creationist that their arguments are ludicrous is like telling it to a rock. You don't understand what God is capable of doing and creating - probably because you are an atheist who believes in evolution and a very ancient Earth. You don't understand that God could easily prevent Bigfoot from being scientifically confirmed either by the actions of Bigfoot (its behavior) or the actions of God (his behavior).

True. That's the path Jodie took in the removed section of the thread, particularly the highlighted portion. That said, these arguments come across as rather absurd when addressed to people who study this for a living. It always boils down to someone admitting they know very little about the field, yet feeling perfectly comfortable telling the experts how to do their job. I'm not saying it happened with Jodie: I'm saying it's the endgame of ALL such discussions in my experience. There was a guy here that tried to argue that mosasaurs became whales, and refused to acknowledge that there was a great deal of evidence against it because 1) experts know nothing, and 2) gross anatomy was similar between the taxa.

I was thinking something more radical.

Fossils are all the product of an episode called the Great Worldwide Flood. There may not be any Bigfoot fossils from that event, or we just haven't found them. Or God may have created Bigfoot after all the fossils were formed.

Again I ask... how many Creationist Bigfooters are in this game?

 

[Resume]

Telling a Creationist that their arguments are ludicrous is like telling it to a rock. You don't understand what God is capable of doing and creating - probably because you are an atheist who believes in evolution and a very ancient Earth. You don't understand that God could easily prevent Bigfoot from being scientifically confirmed either by the actions of Bigfoot (its behavior) or the actions of God (his behavior).

Honest question because I truly do not know. Do many bigfoot enthusiasts
play the supernatural card?

 

[Dinwar]

I was thinking something more radical.

Fossils are all the product of an episode called the Great Worldwide Flood. There may not be any Bigfoot fossils from that event, or we just haven't found them. Or God may have created Bigfoot after all the fossils were formed.

Doesn't negate my statement. I've gotten into these flood debates before. Unfortunately for Creationists, we have very good knowledge of what large-scale floods look like in the rock record.

Still, your general point is well taken: some of these people simply aren't interested in rational debate (not saying anyone here isn't; I'm speaking in general here). A Creationist unwilling to learn even basic geology is a lost cause.

 

[elkabong51]

Honest question because I truly do not know. Do many bigfoot enthusiasts
play the supernatural card?

Yeah, there are many footers playing the spiritual/supernatural card to help explain why no one can get any real evidence of the big hairy. Bigfoot can shape-shift, they can appear and disappear at will, they are from another dimension, they can read minds (and put their thoughts in our minds), and so on. The BFF forums are loaded with these types, it's interesting to check it out once in a while for fun.

 

[MikeG]

When there is nowhere else to hide, I guess all the remaining proponents will be heading for the supernatural or extra terrestrial nonsense. All the fence sitters and previously-interested-but-sane will have left the venue by then, most of them, I'll warrant, when Sykes publishes.

Mike

 

[Northern Lights]

Honest question because I truly do not know. Do many bigfoot enthusiasts
play the supernatural card?

Yes, there are some out there that believe they have supernatural abilities and there are other that play the alien card. Personally, I don't but I was talking to a guy on the last BFRO expedition I attending in 2012 and he sincerely thought they were aliens and beam up when humans get close.

On another BFRO expedition with MM, he was talking about how orbs are associated with sightings. I have no idea how prevalent it is, but I've run across a few. I would guess it's a relatively small number, but who knows.

 

[Dinwar]

When there is nowhere else to hide, I guess all the remaining proponents will be heading for the supernatural or extra terrestrial nonsense. All the fence sitters and previously-interested-but-sane will have left the venue by then, most of them, I'll warrant, when Sykes publishes.

Doubt it. Bigfoot has been around long enough that it's not a question of convincing a group of people anymore. It's the individual journy that's the key. Individuals start out thinking "Hey, there might be something to this". And that's understandable--after all, most people won't see much difference between bigfoot sightings and ivory-billed woodpecker sightings. Then they start digging and realize that there's never anything more substantial. Eventually they realize that the "reasons" consist of post-hoc justifications that become more and more irrational until you get to the full-blowm "bigfoot is the spirit of the forest" crowd. At some point most sane people jump off the crazy train, but enough don't to make it a pretty smooth transition from "Hey, that's kinda odd" to "bigfoot is an alien."

 

[Drewbot]

On another BFRO expedition with MM, he was talking about how orbs are associated with sightings. I have no idea how prevalent it is, but I've run across a few. I would guess it's a relatively small number, but who knows.

Neil? is that you? Did he say BZZT! when the Bigfoot disappeared?

 

[Northern Lights]

When there is nowhere else to hide, I guess all the remaining proponents will be heading for the supernatural or extra terrestrial nonsense. All the fence sitters and previously-interested-but-sane will have left the venue by then, most of them, I'll warrant, when Sykes publishes.

Mike

There is always the "You'll see, real soon" group, which is where I will be if Sykes comes out with all known species.

 

[Resume]

They is always the "You'll see, real soon" group, which is where I will be if Sykes comes out with all known species.

Based on what exactly?

 

[Northern Lights]

Based on what exactly?

Sykes can only confirm what I already know based upon personal experiences. If he comes back with known species, that won't change the thermal sightings and other experiences I've had out in the field. My position will be that we need to get better evidence because what is out there so far hasn't done the job.