Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Resume]

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.

I love Aron Ra. His "If you can't show it, you don't know it" is good advice for bigfoot enthusiasts.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

I assume you mean early man. I think there are plenty of fossils of man in general laying about these days.

Besides, one skeleton is all we really need to confirm something. Even a partial is pretty darn good. Even a few scraps can be enough, such as with giganto.

Well, how many sighting reports of those early humans do we have? I don't recall copious reports of early humans running around in Kentucky in the last 100 years.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, how many sighting reports of those early humans do we have? I don't recall copious reports of early humans running around in Kentucky in the last 100 years.

I've always wondered how many myths and legends began with an encounter with another hominid. What would, say, a Medieval mind think upon encountering a Neanderthal in a deep forest?

 

[William Parcher]

What would, say, a Medieval mind think upon encountering a Neanderthal in a deep forest?

Can it bring me more pleasure than my spouse?

 

[The Shrike]

If the ancient cave bear DNA in this study isn't interesting enough, the "nearly 30 prehistoric human skeletons" recovered from the same cave might be.

That better be a pretty big table . . .

 

[Resume]

Then there's this skull: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/rare-find-skull-juvenile-ape-6-million-years-old-unearthed-8C11122570

 

[rockinkt]

I've always wondered how many myths and legends began with an encounter with another hominid. What would, say, a Medieval mind think upon encountering a Neanderthal in a deep forest?

Or a mild mannered bell-hop encountering Led Zeppelin on tour.

 

[xtifr]

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.

To be fair, "large table" can cover a lot of ground. For example, if we built a table that was a couple of hundred miles on each side....

(You left out the part where he only covered fossils, which ignores the fact that currently extant beasts should leave lots of non-fossilized remains. How many examples of bodies of modern man do we have?)

 

[The Shrike]

(You left out the part where he only covered fossils, which ignores the fact that currently extant beasts should leave lots of non-fossilized remains.

This is one of the annoying things about dealing with bigfooters all these years: I always have to specify fossils and near-fossil or "other ancient remains" or somesuch awkward phrasing because I know that if I don't, some unscrupulous blowhard will try to twist the point to their advantage.

 

[Dinwar]

This is one of the annoying things about dealing with bigfooters all these years: I always have to specify fossils and near-fossil or "other ancient remains" or somesuch awkward phrasing because I know that if I don't, some unscrupulous blowhard will try to twist the point to their advantage.

They want to get into that argument, fine by me. I've done it with better researchers than them. And I was proven wrong, which gives me the advantage of understanding both arguments.

 

[Robrob]

I've always wondered how many myths and legends began with an encounter with another hominid. What would, say, a Medieval mind think upon encountering a Neanderthal in a deep forest?

Just my opinion but I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the "little people of the forest" myths didn't have some basis in chance encounters with (human) sufferers of Downs Syndrome, etc... living in the wild.

 

[River]

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.

OK, so finally a little common ground here. We agree that I can prove some bigfoot sightings/evidence have been hoaxed. (actually, I can prove that the only outcome for bigfoot evidence has been hoaxed/misidentified/delusional)

Now all you need to do is prove ONE is not.

I'm not one to believe in fairies, mermaids or leprechauns. I honestly wouldn't consider investigating anything of that nature. It's absolutely ridicule to suggest a comparison between Bigfoot and those beings. I suggest Bigfoot is a living primate, nothing more. A biological being much like other known great apes with the exception it's bipedal like us. Do I blame you for your opinion? Nope, I had to see it for myself but at least I can say I was open to the possibility that these creatures may be out there.

So, if you don't believe in it, it cannot be? Or it is ridiculed? The comparison I made is valid. Those are also social constructs. You could include many others with it.

The funny part is, the bigfooters keep having so many sightings. They claim to "know where they are at" or some claim habituation situations. That ole pesky evidence thing just keeps avoiding y'all good fellas. Yeah...

You say I have nothing to show from my encounters. Well I admit the videos I shared are not that great but they are "something". Have you really looked at the hillside family group slow motion video and studied it on a large screen? Honestly, have you taken the time to study it fully? Did you look to the lower left of the large subject? If you do, you might see the infant coming out to take a peek at us. Did you focus on the large subject's back/shoulder during the video? If you did, you might see the lighter color hairy arm and hand movements of a smaller subject behind him. If after you spend a little time studying it and still do not see anything, that's ok. But if you do, will you admit it? Can you admit it?

Hook me up with your links. I'll give you an honest opinion.

I've not shared everything I have with the public. But I promise I will when the time comes. I know Bigfoot will absolutely be put on scientific record. As far as when? Who can say. I can't put an exact date on it and I know the public is tired of waiting too but it's still a waiting game.

Someone said in an earlier post that I need to get it together. I have. I learn from my mistakes. The other team members and I have had sightings yes. It's not easy and it's got as much to do with luck as it has doing the research to find their areas. EVERY sighting is by chance.

Do hunters see these creatures in KY? You bet they do. Raccoon hunters, deer hunters, fishermen, there are numerous sightings. So why didn't they pull a trigger? I've asked a few that question. The most common answer is "I thought it may have been a hairy person because it was walking on two legs" Or "Are you kidding? You should have seen the size of that thing. Besides I didn't wanna shoot somebody by mistake."

Responsible hunters will not shoot something unknown if they think it possibly could be a human. That's it. It's not because they're all lying or mistaken, it's because they fear making the ultimate mistake of killing a fellow human. Until we know exactly what these creatures are, I'd be careful suggesting to others they should kill one. I think they're only apes but nobody knows for sure.

It's not impossible for the creatures to exist. Someone I can't remember who, once said "They've already been discovered just not put into the science books yet." It's not like nobody ever saw one before. Sightings are actually growing more common. I think their population is increasing and their habitat is decreasing. You know what's gonna happen soon.

It is impossible for them to exist, and not have been discovered long ago. It's not so much that I doubt your critical thinking skills and I see you may have many associations within the "community" and you must maintain your entertainment face. As for discovery of bigfoot. Hogwash. That's all it will ever be.

I'm fairly certain you already know this as well as I do. You just like playing the game. Bigfoot is fun if you can think it might be out there. Not so much if its really not out there. lol...


Classic bigfooter argument. How long will footers keep seeing it and the thing never gets officially "discovered" Chris? Don't you think after a while (*cough cough* in the year 2013! lol) claims of seeing bigfoot (dragons, unicorns, mermaids, tyrannosaurus rex running around currently) might seem a bit ridiculous, and maybe even laughable?

At what point do you admit it's not there Chris? Do you still think mermaids exist? (you've already said no) So how is that different than bigfoot? Please explain. How is seeing bigfoot different than claiming to see tyrannosaurus rex running around in my back yard?

^^^ Pretty basic logic. I've proven the sources of claimed bigfoot evidence, and it can be proven time and again. Footers just don't like the answer. Prove your assertions. No one is buying bigfoot claims in the year 2013. Why do you think the bounties come up? It's much like the same for proof of ghosts, or psychic powers, or any other kind of horse **** out there.

What is the single best (specific please) piece of bigfoot evidence currently on the books? (crickets) Yet you and your group know where they are, and have seen them multiple times. Out of all the bigfoot claims ever, which one actually lead to a real bigfoot? Which bigfoot claim was ever resolved to anything but fabricated/hoaxed/misidentified/delusional?

*crickets again*

Bigfoot = proven source, you just don't like the answer.

 

[tsig]

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?

It's the "science was wrong once so my woo is true" gambit.

 

[jerrywayne]

The New Mexico "skinwalker" legend has surfaced again with a photo of the alleged creature.

http://b4intest.blogspot.com/2014/02/skinwalker-proof-creepy-photo-ignites.html

The explanation for this "mystery" photo is found in this clip from an 80s monster movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJWL9YaZ3C0

 

[Buhmony]

Hah! Nice work.

 

[HarryHenderson]

The New Mexico "skinwalker" legend has surfaced again with a photo of the alleged creature.
http://b4intest.blogspot.com/2014/02/skinwalker-proof-creepy-photo-ignites.html
The explanation for this "mystery" photo is found in this clip from an 80s monster movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJWL9YaZ3C0

Well, we should probably have Meldrum take a final look at it just to make sure sure, but I'd say that sucker's REAL. It's uncanny how the real Skinwalker was photographed in the exact same spot and at the same time of day as the fake one was way back in the 80's. Truly amazing! Those kinds of coincidences just prove there's a higher authority¹ at work here.


¹ Beast Blanket Bingo LLC, a movie prop company from Hollywood, CA.

 

[barehl]

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.

Let's debunk that pile of bull right now. I have a fossil of a trilobite that was found in my state. My trilobite fossil is not unique in any way yet there have been no trilobites on the Earth for 250 million years. I have a couple of ammonite fossils. These are not rare even though the last ammonite was around 65 million years ago. I have some mastodon teeth. These are not rare. There have been no mastodon for 10,000 years. Show me your bigfoot bones or teeth from a creature you claim is still living.

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

Both of these claims are incorrect. First, there has not been a single Gigantopithecus fossil found in North America nor has there been a living Gigantopithecus found anywhere. Secondly, there is no similarity between a knuckle walking gorilla and an upright walking biped. Please don't make the claim that Gigantopithecus could have evolved into a biped because that is not possible. To evolve an upright posture, you need a creature smaller than a human but larger than 20 lbs.

 

[Buhmony]

This page has an origin and and debunking of that creationist trope about the fossil record of mankind's ancestors fitting on a billiard table:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_quotes_appealing_to_authority_used_by_creationists

Selective and outdated quote.

 

[Drewbot]

Buhmony that is just a bunch of quotes debunked.

I went to the foremost expert.

I asked Dr. John Hawks at UofWisconsin

How extensive is the Hominid fossil record? I had a "Creationist" tell me they could fit it all on a 6'x12' table no stacking.

He replied

I suppose it depends how close you stack them, but 6x12 would only hold the Croatian hominin fossil record.

 

[Dinwar]

Most people get their understanding of the fossil record from popular media, which emphasizes the rarity of fossils. And don't get me wrong--they ARE rare. However, we've had a few hundred years of systematic collecting, and the popular media rather dramatically misrepresents what most paleontologists work with. A fossil of genus Homo need not be the complete skeleton, and in fact is almost never even close to complete. Far more often we find a fragment of a bone we can identify as human(there is an entire literature dedicated to differentiating between human bones and those of other animals). Those fragmentary remains are often just as important as complete skeletons, as they can show a great deal about how the organism lived, how it died, what it ate, etc.--getting permission to cut open a human bone is harder than getting permission to photograph classified, experimental military technology (I've succeeded in the later, but not the former), and fragmentary remains are already broken, so you don't have to get permissio!

I can attest to the fact that a competant archaeologist can identify a human bone from a fragmentray bone a few cm long. I was on a job where one did exactly that. I hate dealing with human remains; the politics is nightmarish, and I've never liked dealing with dead humans. Didn't help that it was overcast and threatening to rain that day; the mood of the project soured pretty quick. Anyway, that shows how misrepresented the hominin record is in the popular media. The stuff we found would never be put on TV or in a museum display; but it's extremely common in the back rooms of museums, and in the collection shelves. Even a small, local museum dedicated to a single outcrop will have at least an order of magnitude more material in the back rooms than on display, if not more.