Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[HarryHenderson]

I give up. If people in this thread can insist they're looking at it from a scientific perspective, but not have any data to support it and reject hte cnocept of examining data, that's your problem. i'll have no part in it.

Strictly speaking you're right. And that's it. Who needs to throw any science at it nowadays anyway? No one here I bet. Once again, the "obviousness" of it all just isn't enough YET for one to make a reasoned, intelligent, fact-based (e.g. no actual Bigfoot has been found anywhere ever) conclusion that there is no Bigfoot? And if in fact that is true, wouldn't anyone subsequently discussing the perhaps scientifically valid if not moot theory of a "potential Beringia migration" had Bigfoot actually existed just being boring and wasting our time?

 

[barehl]

BECAUSE the notion of Giganto migrating into North America isn't inherently unscientific, AND people want to address this scientifically, THEREFORE it is incumbant upon us to actually evaluate the claim.

I have a fairly obvious question. To the best of my knowledge, the proper hip, knee, and ankle structure has only been found in a very narrow category of primates, notably Ardipithecus. So, wouldn't the only candidate ancestor of bigfoot be a robust australopithecine? And wouldn't that make Meganthropus the only known candidate rather than Gigantopithecus?

 

[Castro]

Dinwar, I don't think that, in the matter of fossils, somebody here denies that you (or your colleagues) are the bus driver(s) and that we are the passengers.

- Is making references to your (or your colleagues') work is what you call taking a "rhetorical approach" (as opposed to the "scientific approach" paleontologists would be taking)?

- Is asking footers to show us that fossil they imagined (and the associated peer reviewed study) is what you call a "rhetorical approach"?

If that's the case, well, ok then, let's go for the rhetorical approach. (All that looks like a semantical approach to me )

 

[LTC8K6]

I give up. If people in this thread can insist they're looking at it from a scientific perspective, but not have any data to support it and reject hte cnocept of examining data, that's your problem. i'll have no part in it.

I'm not a scientist.

I do my best to look at whatever is presented to me objectively.

I admit that sometimes I just can't. Some "evidence" for bigfoot is simply absurd.

Anyway, the claim that is unusual typically has the burden of proof.

A 900 pound 9 foot tall bipedal primate, with a healthy and thriving population, living in North America, is certainly an unusual claim.

Of course most people start from the position that such a claim is farcical.

It is farcical.

I fail to see why "science" should start from any other position, when no evidence whatsoever has been provided to support the claim.

Despite that, scientists have taken the subject seriously, and they continue to do so.

 

[The Shrike]

I'm sorry that I used the word "consensus" Dinwar, 'cause that obviously sent you on a needless tangent. I meant "that which has been published in the scientific literature."

I assume that, like other scientists, paleontologists publish their work. I know this to be true because I've read quite a bit of it. I have specifically conducted literature searches on the distributions of hominid fossils and those of Pleistocene megafauna in North America. I have found nothing to suggest that anything remotely bigfooty ever dispersed to North America, and nothing anywhere other than Giganto mouth parts that could legitimately be claimed to have come from a creature that
might have looked like a bigfoot.

Unless paleontologists have been collecting such fossils and intentionally hiding that information from the world, then I am completely confident that my statements to the effect that we have no Bigfoot fossils represent a scientific argument against the existence if bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

Dinwar:

I too very much admire Aron Ra's dictum "If you can't show it, you don't know it," which is why I know that bigfoot knowers know nothing at all.

A 9-ft, 600-lb bipedal ape with continent-wide distribution as claimed would leave significant biological evidence of its existence. What bigfoot propopents have submitted as their best biological evidence has never come up bigfoot, ever. Nor has anyone produced any portion of a bigfoot for scientific review. Evidence is completely lacking from where one would expect much of it, including a specimen.

All animals (including man) follow certain patterns; these patterns lead to their discovery, and demise in many cases. Bigfoot would be no different and its proponents do their argument no service in claiming its ubiquity. Though to be honest, claiming bigfoot only exists in an unexplored part of the PNW would be a doomed argument as well as there's no such thing, and even if there was, such specificity gives one a place to look.

I don't claim to be a scientist, nor do I longer claim to be purely objective when it comes to this subject; but I'd like to see an argument (beyond the supernatural) that could possibly counter all the objections to proponent claims.

 

[Drewbot]

My point, as I have said explicitely and repeatedly, is that BECAUSE the notion of Giganto migrating into North America isn't inherently unscientific, AND people want to address this scientifically, THEREFORE it is incumbant upon us to actually evaluate the claim. If someone can prove that the claim is, in itself, unscientific, this argument doesn't hold. If you don't want to address this scientifically, that's fine--I even gave you a few options for valid ways to evaluate it other than scientifically. If you want to claim that you're approaching this from a scientific angle, there's only one way to proceed: you have to determine whether Giganto fossils appear along the known migration patheways into North America from Asia at the appropriate times. This is a paleontological question.

If you want to make a scientific claim, you are obliged to be able to support it with data.
<SNIP>
And in the case of Giganto, the consensus is completely inadequate.

There are no fossils of Giganto anywhere between South East Asia, and Siberia.
You can see the range of forest here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7249/full/459910a.html

To get to Siberia, would mean that 5300 Km of non Jungle terrain, for a brachiator (most likely) would have to be traversed.

I consulted Dr. John Hawks on the idea that Giganto ever migrated to Siberia, he simply said 'no Giganto fossils outside of SE Asia'.

The Giganto theory was proposed by Krantz, who based his theory on the Hoaxed Shipton Print. Unfortunately for you Bigfooters, the theory stuck, and others glommed onto it in the years that followed.

You can see the timeline of the failed Giganto theory here
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/gigantopithecus--_the_jury-rig.html

It is a total failure, in that A. The Shipton prints were hoaxed, B. There is no Giganto outside of SE Asia. C. The Bigfoot is a Biped and walks like 'you and me'- Patterson, Giganto was a jungle creature, and most likely a brachiator.

The link above shows failure after failure of the Bigfoot elite to try and make the Giganto theory fit the Bigfoot Myth. Bigfoot was clearly created to capitalize on the Yeti craze here in North America.

 

[tsig]

I give up. If people in this thread can insist they're looking at it from a scientific perspective, but not have any data to support it and reject hte cnocept of examining data, that's your problem. i'll have no part in it.

We will all miss you beating us over the head with useless words and telling us how ignorant we are.

 

[dmaker]

Even if evidence of a G.Blacki migration event to North America was discovered, this still would not equal evidence of bigfoot. What is known about Giganto seems to be sparse and open for debate. It does not seem a widely agreed fact that it was bipedal even and appears to have been a herbivore eating mostly bamboo. How do we get from that to our modern day footie that is a bipedal, lean, mean pig tossing and ungulate eating machine?

 

[Resume]

How do we get from that to our modern day footie that is a bipedal, lean, mean pig tossing and ungulate eating machine?

And how do we get to said footie with zero (0) reliable observations of the creature? Much less physical evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

A 900 pound 9 foot tall bipedal primate, with a healthy and thriving population, living in North America, is certainly an unusual claim.

What makes the claim unusual is the complete lack of any biological evidence. It is then suddenly a scientific topic and the conclusion of non-existence is based in everything that science can offer.

Of course most people start from the position that such a claim is farcical.

That position would be supported by science whether the person realizes it or not. Sometimes the layperson evaluation and position is no different than that of a scientist even if they have not yet heard from any scientist on the topic. It would be a mistake to think that "the starting position of farce and non-existence" is not based in scientific evaluation and data. It is. The position of non-existence (denialism) is always packaged with the knowledge that no biological evidence has ever been presented. People say that Bigfoot doesn't exist because no Bigfoot or even a part of one has ever been presented.

You will see people say that Bigfoot still hasn't been found in the 47 years since the PGF as if the clock didn't start ticking until Patterson filmed Patty in 1967. As if not presenting a Bigfoot prior to 1967 is fully understandable. As if you can only find something that has been filmed and not before that. This is actually short-changing the evidence against Bigfoot and the person may not understand that their position and claim is far more robust than they express because the claim must include all possible opportunities to confirm Bigfoot across time and space. The opportunities began centuries ago, not in 1967 or even in 1958 when Jerry Crew found those tracks and Bigfoot and the invention of its name went to the news headlines.

Far more could be said about this. The denialist position is anything but a knee-jerk reaction no matter how casually it is expressed.

 

[Correa Neto]

And how do we get to said footie with zero (0) reliable observations of the creature? Much less physical evidence.

Meh.
Just check any Dungeons and Dragons monster manuals.

All those stats and no physical evidence. Bigfootery is way behind D&D.

 

[barehl]

I see that people are still talking about Gigantopithecus. The shape of the jaw suggests a gorilla-like ape rather than an australopithecine. Meganthropus is the only candidate I know of. These were about 2/3rds the size of the gigantopithecus which would easily put them into the 8' tall range at a weight higher than any existing gorilla. Gorillas have an upper weight limit of about 500 lbs, making them slightly smaller than the American black bear. Meganthropus would be around 660 lbs which is slightly smaller than the North American grizzly bear. Gigantopithecus would be larger than a grizzly bear but considerably smaller than a polar bear or brown bear. However, North America had lots of short-faced bears at that time and these could weigh more than 2,100 lbs. Giant ground sloths were able to survive with such large predators because they could weigh 8,000 lbs (larger than modern hippopotamus or white rhinoceros). If someone seriously wanted to claim that meganthropus migrated to North America, they would have to explain why they wouldn't get eaten by short-faced bear.

As far as the fossils go, Meganthropus has been found in China just like Gigantopithecus. However, neither has been found in North America or even Siberia. Keep in mind that in North America we have found fossils of:
saber tooth cats
cheetah
short faced bear
dire wolves
camels
horses
giant ground sloth
mastodon
mammoth
two extinct species of bison
black bear
brown bear
polar bear

The only fossil primate I know of for North America was Notharctus but that dates back 50 million years and these were smaller than a squirrel monkey.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

If you want to make a scientific claim, you are obliged to be able to support it with data.

Hilarious. That post was 869 words regarding your claim as gigantopithecus being bigfoot. With zero data. Talk about hypocrisy. Add all of the other words in posts doing the same thing, and it is in the thousands.

Like for example the teeth, from which they infer a diet of bamboo. Something not found in alleged bigfoot territory historically. The jawbone, windpipe placement, etc.? Not a word out of you.

It's proof of the maxim that a bigfoot proponent is going to know the least about any subject which he professes to be tendering an opinion on.

Have you no shame at all? Well, obviously not. There are times when shameful behavior does need pointing out, as opposed to being deceptively manipulative. Really - what kind of ethics are these to go about berating people so hypocritically and show such little knowledge of what you claim to profess?

 

[barehl]

You will see people say that Bigfoot still hasn't been found in the 47 years since the PGF as if the clock didn't start ticking until Patterson filmed Patty in 1967.

This is a good point. The Klondike Gold Rush was from 1896-1899. This included eastern Alaska and the Yukon in Canada. It was estimated that 100,000 people traveled to this region. I don't recall a Jack London novel about bigfoot. People are still mining gold in this area.

The second major influx was building the Alaskan Highway in 1942. This period would also have seen expansion of lumber mills in Canada with the high demand for wood. No bigfoot.

The third influx was building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from 1974-1977. This period also saw major expansion of oil production in Canada and construction of Canadian pipeline systems. Oil exploration is still taking place in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. No bigfoot.

The last influx was the diamond mine rush to Ekati in 1985. This expanded to the Diavik, Snap Lake, Jericho, and Victor mines. No bigfoot.

 

[Kotatsu]

With the exception that they have provide a type specimen.

Even with a type, the Code as such does not include any provisions for determining whether or not a given taxon is different from another taxon. I could designate a gorilla that has died in a US zoo as the holotype for whatever scientific name I want to give Bigfoot tomorrow, giving the type locality vaguely as "California", and in the eyes of the Code, I have done nothing wrong. The Code would not be able to determine whether this was a gorilla or not, provided I've been clever with my description. Only the community of primatologists would be able to determine that, and show (rightly) that all I've done is to create an unnecessary (subjective) junior synonym to the gorilla. They can then use the provisions of the Code to deal with that situation, but that's a different part of the process.

I know of one--a marine organism thought to have existed by scientists, but which was later found to not exist. There is (or at least was) a specific rule put into the Code to deal with it. That said, Bigfoot doesn't fall under that rule. No body, no fossil, no name.

I know of several, including "reptiles" and birds, that have been published in good journals with no holotype preserved (though one of them was a live specimen in a wildlife preserve that was being monitored and would be deposited in some museum as soon as it died). I have never heard about this one, though. Do you happen to remember what it's called?

 

[The Shrike]

Meganthropus is the only candidate I know of.

If you have some specific and reliable sources of information on Meganthropus, I'd love to learn more about it. As far as I have been able to discern, there is great uncertainty about the degree to which putative Meganthropus remains (again, just a few skull and jaw fragments) are distinctive enough to warrant species status, or if they just represent some upper end of the size range for Homo erectus. At least it seems clear that this form was restricted to Java.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

This is a good point. The Klondike Gold Rush was from 1896-1899. This included eastern Alaska and the Yukon in Canada. It was estimated that 100,000 people traveled to this region. I don't recall a Jack London novel about bigfoot. People are still mining gold in this area.

.

Before the American presence in Alaska the Russians had more than a century of detailed reports, most especially the Russian-American Company that was engaged primarily in shipping enormous quantities of pelts, the most valuable of which was the sea otter. But it was everything, including running industrial fox farms along with pelts from muskrat to moose.

They had agricultural settlements too, stretching all the way down to Fort Ross California by the end of the 1700's. Not one word about bigfoot. A lot on the natives, some of which were allies and some they had extensive wars with.

Bigfoot is centuries too late.

 

[HarryHenderson]

It's curious Dinwar is seemingly taking us to task for an answer to a question science itself would never claim any great ability to properly prove, the negative. He probably doesn't even realize it, but he has in essence said to us "Prove scientifically there is no Bigfoot." Here's your proof buddy. No Bigfoot. Is that really so hard to "deal with"?

P.S. CRIPES! I just read on the Internet that Bigfoot might have been an air breather. I suppose now we'll have to go investigate every respiratory therapist from here to Omaha and make sure they haven't "mistakenly" treated a Bigfoot with COPD. You know, for science.

P.P.S. Dinwar, see any of the absurdity yet? None? No?

P.P.P.S. What about now?

 

[jerrywayne]

This is an interesting article about Gigantophicus that offers up a refutation of the Giganto/Bigfoot connection:

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/g/gigantopithecus.html