Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[William Parcher]

Shrike, as you know, once a person has seen a Bigfoot with their own eyes absolutely nothing you say can take that away from them. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Dinwar]

Nothing would have been discovered if someone wasn't looking for it.

This statement can only be made by someone completely ignorant of science. Many major breakthroughs were accidental. Scientists understand that accidents happen, and are trained to differentiate between meaningless accidents and ones with potential.

Secondly, when new species are found they are based on rigorous scientific investigation. Basically, we know what we're looking for. We know the niche, we know the environment, we know the morphology, we know the habits (granted, the latter is usually by a process of elimination). And we have evidence that it's there.

As I said up-thread: the best evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot is the complete and total lack of fossils. We're not talking about something small and easily missed; we're talking about megafaunal remains, stuff that people like me are trained to look for. We haven't found any. While lack of evidence isn't good evidence for absence, after a certain point you have to start asking yourself "Why isn't there any data?" And one very real posibility is that there's no data because bigfoot doesn't exist.

Also, usually scientists don't find a new species by mounting expaditions to find one. They find new species by looking at hundreds of species during ecological surveys. Bigfoot believers use pretty much the opposite methodology of real scientists.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, the statements I made about market hunters aren't speculation; they're borne out by the extirpation and near-extirpation of NA wildlife from passenger pigeon to bison. And of course the extirpation of Native American tribes. Bigfoot could not have escaped this destruction.

Unless you care to propose a supernatural hypothesis, which would be fun.

Congratulations, you have convinced yourself Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[Resume]

Congratulations, you have convinced yourself Bigfoot does not exist.

No, I've demonstrated that he couldn't, not where you folks allege, not without supernatural qualities.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This statement can only be made by someone completely ignorant of science. Many major breakthroughs were accidental. Scientists understand that accidents happen, and are trained to differentiate between meaningless accidents and ones with potential.

Secondly, when new species are found they are based on rigorous scientific investigation. Basically, we know what we're looking for. We know the niche, we know the environment, we know the morphology, we know the habits (granted, the latter is usually by a process of elimination). And we have evidence that it's there.

As I said up-thread: the best evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot is the complete and total lack of fossils. We're not talking about something small and easily missed; we're talking about megafaunal remains, stuff that people like me are trained to look for. We haven't found any. While lack of evidence isn't good evidence for absence, after a certain point you have to start asking yourself "Why isn't there any data?" And one very real posibility is that there's no data because bigfoot doesn't exist.

Also, usually scientists don't find a new species by mounting expaditions to find one. They find new species by looking at hundreds of species during ecological surveys. Bigfoot believers use pretty much the opposite methodology of real scientists.

OK, bolding mine. First the ignorance of science shot. Thanks, a very nice way to lose the argument literally as soon as you began. But many here seem to start with insults and work their way down. So you're really not standing out in the crowd much.

Second, the best evidence for Bigfoot is a lack of fossils you say. OK. How large is the entire fossil record of man? Anyone? The entire record, that's all the bones, skeletons, skull fragments, you name it, everything that has been pulled out of the Earth to date, will fit onto one large table.

Also, Bigfoot may match with Giganto fossils (which we do have). The descriptions between the two are very similar.

Third, and this gets back to the first point in a way. You say scientists don't find new species by mounting expeditions, they find new species by looking at hundreds of species from ecological surveys.

Exactly what is an ecological survey if it's not a trip into the environment to see/document stuff? Wouldn't an ecological survey BE an expedition?
I'm getting bored.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, I've demonstrated that he couldn't, not where you folks allege, not without supernatural qualities.

And yet what if you're wrong? Can you accept that possibility?

 

[FFed]

Even if it was a Kangaroo killed in Kentucky, what does it have to do with bigfoot? A known animal was killed and this is somehow evidence of an unknown animal?

 

[William Parcher]

I'm getting bored.

No you aren't. You live for this.

 

[LTC8K6]

Also, Bigfoot may match with Giganto fossils (which we do have). The descriptions between the two are very similar.

Who gave the descriptions of giganto?

AFAIK, we have no idea what giganto looked like and can't even say if it was quad or bipedal.

Munns made a nice giganto statue, but it's sheer guesswork.

 

[Resume]

And yet what if you're wrong? Can you accept that possibility?

I am wrong about stuff every day. So are you. It's no big deal. Thing is, not in this instance, not where you guys claim this thing lives.

Undiscovered primate somewhere, sure; undiscovered 6 to 10-foot primate crawling all over this continent without leaving a single bit of confirmed biological evidence, not really.

 

[Resume]

Exactly what is an ecological survey if it's not a trip into the environment to see/document stuff? Wouldn't an ecological survey BE an expedition?
I'm getting bored.

There were any number of such expeditions (seeing, documenting, harvesting, eating, clothing) into this continent's interior since the formation of Beringia. That's roughly 15,000 years and no bigfoot body.

 

[Dinwar]

OK, bolding mine. First the ignorance of science shot. Thanks, a very nice way to lose the argument literally as soon as you began. But many here seem to start with insults and work their way down. So you're really not standing out in the crowd much.

No insult in my statements--it's a statement of fact. Knowledge of hte history of science would show you innumerable accidental discoveries. Your statement is factually incorrect, and only defensible by you not knowing the material.

The other option is that you're a liar. So go ahead, take your pick: either you don't know the history of science, or you do but are lying about it. I'll go with either one you choose.

Second, the best evidence for Bigfoot is a lack of fossils you say. OK. How large is the entire fossil record of man? Anyone? The entire record, that's all the bones, skeletons, skull fragments, you name it, everything that has been pulled out of the Earth to date, will fit onto one large table.

This is another lie. The entire fossil record for humans wouldn't fit in a SWIMMING POOL, much less on a table. This is typical Creationist lies--and that's all it is, lies. Please brush up on paleoanthropology if you wish to discuss this topic. I can recommend some good resources on the topic if you'd like.

Also, Bigfoot may match with Giganto fossils (which we do have). The descriptions between the two are very similar.

Two issues here. First, the descriptions of bigfoot are too vague to be useful taxonomically. Second, Gigantopithicus is not found in North America. Period. Full stop. This, despite tremendous amounts of research into the Quaternary of North America, particularly in places where apes would have first shown up (I am part of that effort, by the way). So your BEST argument is to essentially agree with me, but dishonestly alter the terms: if bigfoot ever existed, it was what's actually know as Gigantopithicus, it wasn't in North America, and the fossil record clearly illustrates this.

Third, and this gets back to the first point in a way. You say scientists don't find new species by mounting expeditions, they find new species by looking at hundreds of species from ecological surveys.

They don't mount expeditions to find a single new species. You dropped that part of the quote. Scientists do mount expeditions, but no one but crackpots spends that kind of money on locating one unknown species. And they don't do ecological surveys to find new things, 9 times out of 10--they do them to learn the health of an ecosystem. Are you familiar with the concept of a rarefraction curve?

I'm getting bored.

If you'd bother to do some research into Quaternary paleontology of North America you wouldn't be. It's a facinating subject. Just don't expect it to support your pet dogma.

 

[Drewbot]

If you'd bother to do some research into Quaternary paleontology of North America you wouldn't be. It's a facinating subject. Just don't expect it to support your pet dogma.

I'm betting on; HE WON'T.

 

[Drewbot]

I would venture to say that it is more likely that Gigantopithecus came to North America via flotsam.

 

[Dinwar]

Who gave the descriptions of giganto?

AFAIK, we have no idea what giganto looked like and can't even say if it was quad or bipedal.

Last I checked (late spring 2013) we had a partial mandable for Gigantopithicus. Given that it's a mammal, that's sufficient for identification (mammology is skulls and teeth, after all), but it's insufficient for a discription of the entire organism.

Asian apes aren't my specialty, so if anyone has more recent data it would be appreciated.

 

[Resume]

This is another lie. The entire fossil record for humans wouldn't fit in a SWIMMING POOL, much less on a table. This is typical Creationist lies--and that's all it is, lies. Please brush up on paleoanthropology if you wish to discuss this topic. I can recommend some good resources on the topic if you'd like.

Please do.

 

[Dinwar]

I would venture to say that it is more likely that Gigantopithecus came to North America via flotsam.

Hm...Some of my personal research is actually in this direction, only focused on mollusks. An interesting thought, though doubtful (what would it drink?).

 

[Drewbot]

Hm...Some of my personal research is actually in this direction, only focused on mollusks. An interesting thought, though doubtful (what would it drink?).

Rainwater, Coconuts. If it was a bamboo eater, don't Giant Pandas get almost all of their water from the Bamboo they eat? It could have been washed to sea on a chunk of land rife with bamboo.

 

[Sherman Bay]

River, I understand your point of view. I agree you can prove some Bigfoot sightings and casts have been hoaxed. But, you cannot prove ALL have been hoaxed. You cannot prove ALL witnesses are mistaken or lying or delusional.

Prove? No, we cannot prove it. But we can make that claim, and point out that 100% of the "evidence" is either false, ambiguous or points strongly to the non-existence of such a creature.

Try proving Santa Claus' non-existence sometime. Betcha can't.

 

[Dinwar]

Please do.

Gould's "Mismeasure of a Man" is a good place for someone not into the really technical side to start, as is the recent book criticizing it (I forget the name off-hand). Both are very well-sourced, and can lead you to more technical publications. It also introduces you to some of the issues involved in identifying human remains.

AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" is another good place for non-technical folks to get some good information. He has a video on this topic, and while you have to pause it to get all the reference info it's there.

"Archaeology of Human Remains" is another good one. It focuses on more recent stuff, but includes some good references to truly ancient bones (it discusses taphonomy at one point). Shipmen's "Life History of a Fossil" also includes discussions of human remains. It's a bit dated (1980s), but that only illustrates the error ChrisBFRPKY committed: it's been known to be false for longer than my lifetime.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Smithsonian, you can see a lot of remains. And remember, the ones on display are a drop in the ocean compared to the stuff in the back, particularly for that institution (I can see from experience that the invert fossil displays are NOTHING compared to the collections!).

"The Peopling of North America" is a good reference by way of contrast--it discusses how we know humans crossed into North America, and shows the sort of evidence that we'd expect to find from apes doing the same thing. We've found precisely no such evidence for Gigantopithicus.

If you want more technical references, it will have to wait for this evening. Those are good places to start, though.