Survivorman Bigfoot

[Syne]

Forested areas are not good areas for fossil formation OR hunting.

Kinda destroys your "why are there no fossils argument" if all we have of gigantopithecus are teeth and jaws.

So what. There are lots of unexplored forested areas remaining. And if Bigfoot is a nocturnal intelligent hominid, it explains why we haven't discovered him yet.

How did it lead to just teeth for Gigantopithicus. Fossilization is a rare process. There are probably tons of species that we have never found fossils of.

God was a Great Spirit for native americans. Saskwatch was a real animal to native americans alongside wolves and deer and
buffalo and ravens.

Eyewitness accounts are excellent evidence and convict criminals everyday.

Hairs of no known species equals hairs of a species yet to be discovered. Hence bigfoot.

No..footprint casts numbering in the hundreds studied by primate experts and confirmed to have been made by a real animal.

Forested areas aren't good for hunting or fossils? Cite your source then.
"An array of wildlife suitable for hunting may be found on national forests and grasslands." - https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/know-before-you-go/hunting
"Petrified Forest has plant and animal fossils from the Triassic Period, going back over 200 million years." - https://www.nps.gov/pefo/learn/nature/fossils.htm
So the remains of living creatures are more scarce than late Miocene to mid Pleistocene remains?
Again, over a century since ANY large animal has been discovered.
So your land bridge = no fossils is bullshit. Got it.
Native Americans also have legends of giants, dwarves, underwater monsters, four-legged predators, and enormous birds...all considered "real animals". Do you believe in all those too?
Scientific evidence is not the same as legal evidence...learn the difference.
No, hair of an unknown species could easily just be one of the over 5,000 known mammal species that just hasn't been compared. Or do you have evidence that an completely exhaustive comparison has been made? If so, cite it already.
You cannot confirm something made by a real animal without observing the animal make a sample track under comparison.

Nope..one clear footage of a tall furry hominid whose gait and anatomy defy anything known or a man in a ape suit. It even has breasts. It's a mother!

Now we all know what you see is not faithfully recalled or described. That firmly points to heavy bias or delusion.
Nothing there defies known human traits.

[Magical Realist]

Forested areas aren't good for hunting or fossils? Cite your source then.
"An array of wildlife suitable for hunting may be found on national forests and grasslands." - https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/know-before-you-go/hunting
"Petrified Forest has plant and animal fossils from the Triassic Period, going back over 200 million years." - https://www.nps.gov/pefo/learn/nature/fossils.htm

Dumbass. Forests aren't good for fossil formation, particularly of bones, or fossil hunting. The soil is too acidic for the preservation of organic compounds plus the dampness contributes to decay. This is just common sense.

Again, over a century since ANY large animal has been discovered.

How many centuries did it take for western man to discover the gorilla?

So your land bridge = no fossils is bullshit. Got it.

No dumbass. The landbridge doesn't mean less fossils. It means there were ways for hominids to travel from asia to north america. And fossils have nothing to do with it since fossilization of bones is rare.

Native Americans also have legends of giants, dwarves, underwater monsters, four-legged predators, and enormous birds...all considered "real animals". Do you believe in all those too?

I've never heard of native americans believing in giants and dwarves, unless you count bigfoot as a giant. That sort of makes sense now. Thanks..

Scientific evidence is not the same as legal evidence...learn the difference.

Evidence is evidence. And eyewitness accounts numbering in the thousands is excellent evidence.

No, hair of an unknown species could easily just be one of the over 5,000 known mammal species that just hasn't been compared. Or do you have evidence that an completely exhaustive comparison has been made? If so, cite it already.

No..animal hair experts have whole databases containing all the mammal species and their hair samples. It's simple science.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

[Syne]

Forested areas aren't good for hunting or fossils? Cite your source then.
"An array of wildlife suitable for hunting may be found on national forests and grasslands." - https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/know-before-you-go/hunting
"Petrified Forest has plant and animal fossils from the Triassic Period, going back over 200 million years." - https://www.nps.gov/pefo/learn/nature/fossils.htm

Dumbass. Forests aren't good for fossil formation, particularly of bones, or fossil hunting. The soil is too acidic for the preservation of organic compounds plus the dampness contributes to decay. This is just common sense.

More unprovoked name-calling only demonstrates your irrationality.

"Bigfoot believers argue that the soil in areas where the creatures live -- such as the region surrounding Bellingham, Wash., seen here -- is acidic and quickly breaks down the bones. Nonsense, says Radford: "There's nothing to that, because Bigfoot has been reported in every state but Hawaii."" - https://www.seeker.com/10-reasons-why-bi...00582.html

Who said anything about "fossil hunting"?

"Buried somewhere within the San Juan National Forest lie the remains of a prehistoric creature who roamed Colorado nearly 150 million years ago." - http://archive.cortezjournal.com/archives/1news1292.htm

"Researchers have found a fossil with bite.
Teeth from an ancient marine predator is the latest find to come from Maungataniwha Native Forest, inland Hawke's Bay." - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-tod...d=11424041

Too acidic, huh?

Again, over a century since ANY large animal has been discovered.

How many centuries did it take for western man to discover the gorilla?

As soon as man explored their habitat.

""From October 16th. to 18th., senior physician Dr. Engeland and I together with only a few Askaris and the absolutely necessary baggage attempted to climb the so far unknown Kirunga ya Sabyinyo which, according to my estimation must have a height of 3300 metres." - http://www.gorilla100.com/30-Discovery.html

So your land bridge = no fossils is bullshit. Got it.

No dumbass. The landbridge doesn't mean less fossils. It means there were ways for hominids to travel from asia to north america. And fossils have nothing to do with it since fossilization of bones is rare.

More defensive, unprovoked name-calling.

Who said large primates couldn't have migrated to North America? Straw man?
There are plenty of hominid fossils found in Asia. So why not North America? O_o

Native Americans also have legends of giants, dwarves, underwater monsters, four-legged predators, and enormous birds...all considered "real animals". Do you believe in all those too?

I've never heard of native americans believing in giants and dwarves, unless you count bigfoot as a giant. That sort of makes sense now. Thanks..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Peo..._Mountains
http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-leg...bes-005774

Again, do you believe in giants and dwarves too?

Scientific evidence is not the same as legal evidence...learn the difference.

Evidence is evidence. And eyewitness accounts numbering in the thousands is excellent evidence.

No, you're naively conflating at least three very different criteria.


"In all forms of anecdotal evidence, its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt.
...
In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"
...
Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.
...
Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.
...
Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. ... Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning to identify possible gaps or inconsistencies, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation, it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence


So if your confirmation bias will even allow you to comprehend that, it's clear that not all evidence is equal and number of unsubstantiated anecdotal reports could simply be subjective validation and hold no independent validity in science nor law.

No, hair of an unknown species could easily just be one of the over 5,000 known mammal species that just hasn't been compared. Or do you have evidence that an completely exhaustive comparison has been made? If so, cite it already.

No..animal hair experts have whole databases containing all the mammal species and their hair samples. It's simple science.

Really? What database has hair samples of all animals?


"Some critics emphasize the fact that microscopic-hair examiners are unable to statistically quantify the significance of an association (see, for example, Robertson 1999). The development of a statistical model would involve frequency data across the entire population for all microscopic characteristics present in hair. Although this is an attractive idea, the difficulties associated with generating such a database have been, to date, practically insurmountable. In order to generate frequency data for hair characteristics, microscopic-hair examiners might be required to use a “checklist” or “archetype” approach rather than the pattern-recognition process normally used.
...
These examples do not reflect a flaw in the science of microscopic hair comparisons or an error by a microscopic-hair examiner; rather, they serve to highlight the limitations of generating a useful database. The database approach confines the examiner to documenting the status of single characteristics at a specific location in a single focal plane as opposed to a holistic approach. That characteristic may change slightly at a different focal plane even at the exact same location and may change dramatically at a different location in the hair. In a single hair, there are hundreds or even thousands of possible different fields of view."
- https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-...view02.htm

[Magical Realist]

"Bigfoot believers argue that the soil in areas where the creatures live -- such as the region surrounding Bellingham, Wash., seen here -- is acidic and quickly breaks down the bones. Nonsense, says Radford: "There's nothing to that, because Bigfoot has been reported in every state but Hawaii."" - https://www.seeker.com/10-reasons-why-bi...00582.html

Since bigfoot is a woodland or forest creature, his bones would always be in poor conditions for fossilization no matter what state it is. He is always found in these enviroments. Therefore bone fossilization would be rare if nonexistent, just like with Gigantopithicus. Here's some other reasons no bigfoot bones are being found:

10 REASONS USED FOR LACK OF PHYSICAL REMAINS

1. People rarely ever find the remains of large wild animals.
2. They avoid people thus perish in secluded areas and decompose before ever seen.
3. Remains can be reduced to bone in a week.
4. Bones are scattered and gnawed on by animals and covered by forest debris.
5. Bones seldom fossilize in acidic forest soils, but also decay.
6. Many forest animals and insects love a free meal.
7. No one searches for their remains.
8. Government cover-up/conspiracies.
9. Bones have been found but are invariably misidentified as human.
10. Sasquatches carry away and bury their dead.

https://sasquatchchronicles.com/why-are-...-or-bones/

Again, do you believe in giants and dwarves too?

You've never heard of the "hobbit" hominid fossils found in Indonesia or the Gigantopithicus? Both examples of hominids fitting those descriptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

Eyewitness testimony is certainly reliable enough to convict criminals and give us the evening news. Who said it has to be "scientific"? What's the scientific evidence for most the events that occurred in your life? All anecdotal? Oh oh! lol!

"Some critics emphasize the fact that microscopic-hair examiners are unable to statistically quantify the significance of an association (see, for example, Robertson 1999). The development of a statistical model would involve frequency data across the entire population for all microscopic characteristics present in hair. Although this is an attractive idea, the difficulties associated with generating such a database have been, to date, practically insurmountable. In order to generate frequency data for hair characteristics, microscopic-hair examiners might be required to use a “checklist” or “archetype” approach rather than the pattern-recognition process normally used.
...
These examples do not reflect a flaw in the science of microscopic hair comparisons or an error by a microscopic-hair examiner; rather, they serve to highlight the limitations of generating a useful database. The database approach confines the examiner to documenting the status of single characteristics at a specific location in a single focal plane as opposed to a holistic approach. That characteristic may change slightly at a different focal plane even at the exact same location and may change dramatically at a different location in the hair. In a single hair, there are hundreds or even thousands of possible different fields of view."
- https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-...view02.htm

Thanks for the strawman about the FBI's difficulty in generating a HUMAN hair sample database. We were talking mammals weren't we? How hard would it be to collect slides of all known mammal hairs in that database? It's basic science. Oh and look. Here's a partial database right here!

https://www.omicsonline.org/articles-adm...p?aid=7573

And here's one for Australia!

http://www.ecobyte.com.au/index.html

[Syne]

"Bigfoot believers argue that the soil in areas where the creatures live -- such as the region surrounding Bellingham, Wash., seen here -- is acidic and quickly breaks down the bones. Nonsense, says Radford: "There's nothing to that, because Bigfoot has been reported in every state but Hawaii."" - https://www.seeker.com/10-reasons-why-bi...00582.html

Since bigfoot is a woodland or forest creature, his bones would always be in poor conditions for fossilization no matter what state it is. He is always found in these enviroments. Therefore bone fossilization would be rare if nonexistent, just like with Gigantopithicus. Here's some other reasons no bigfoot bones are being found:

10 REASONS USED FOR LACK OF PHYSICAL REMAINS

1. People rarely ever find the remains of large wild animals.
2. They avoid people thus perish in secluded areas and decompose before ever seen.
3. Remains can be reduced to bone in a week.
4. Bones are scattered and gnawed on by animals and covered by forest debris.
5. Bones seldom fossilize in acidic forest soils, but also decay.
6. Many forest animals and insects love a free meal.
7. No one searches for their remains.
8. Government cover-up/conspiracies.
9. Bones have been found but are invariably misidentified as human.
10. Sasquatches carry away and bury their dead.

https://sasquatchchronicles.com/why-are-...-or-bones/

Well with woo like government conspiracies and burial rituals....

Again, do you believe in giants and dwarves too?

You've never heard of the "hobbit" hominid fossils found in Indonesia or the Gigantopithicus? Both examples of hominids fitting those descriptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Contemporary to native American populations? O_o

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

Eyewitness testimony is certainly reliable enough to convict criminals and give us the evening news. Who said it has to be "scientific"? What's the scientific evidence for most the events that occurred in your life? All anecdotal? Oh oh! lol!

No, you had to ignore large chucks of my post to deny that eyewitnesses in law require corroborating evidence.
No one said your belief in bigfoot has to be scientific. You can believe whatever you like.

And thanks for confirming that you do conflate all three.

"Some critics emphasize the fact that microscopic-hair examiners are unable to statistically quantify the significance of an association (see, for example, Robertson 1999). The development of a statistical model would involve frequency data across the entire population for all microscopic characteristics present in hair. Although this is an attractive idea, the difficulties associated with generating such a database have been, to date, practically insurmountable. In order to generate frequency data for hair characteristics, microscopic-hair examiners might be required to use a “checklist” or “archetype” approach rather than the pattern-recognition process normally used.
...
These examples do not reflect a flaw in the science of microscopic hair comparisons or an error by a microscopic-hair examiner; rather, they serve to highlight the limitations of generating a useful database. The database approach confines the examiner to documenting the status of single characteristics at a specific location in a single focal plane as opposed to a holistic approach. That characteristic may change slightly at a different focal plane even at the exact same location and may change dramatically at a different location in the hair. In a single hair, there are hundreds or even thousands of possible different fields of view."
- https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-...view02.htm

Thanks for the strawman about the FBI's difficulty in generating a HUMAN hair sample database. We were talking mammals weren't  we? How hard would it be to collect slides of all known mammal hairs in that database? It's basic science.

I guess your confirmation bias kept you from actually reading that source:

"Animal Hairs

Hair identification is not employed solely by forensic scientists. Hair identification is an important tool used by wildlife biologists, archeologists, anthropologists, and textile conservators. Many researchers have investigated the morphological characteristics of hair, devised keys, and reviewed the science of animal-hair identification (Appleyard 1960; Day 1966; Mathiak 1938; Mayer 1952; Moore 1974; Oyer 1939; Stains 1958, 1962; Wildman 1954, 1961; Williams 1938). These works have aided in ecological studies, food-habit studies, and law enforcement investigations by providing descriptions, keys, and photographs of the microscopic characteristics of animal hairs.

Brown (1942) attempted to develop a technique for identifying hairs and wools from various types of materials recovered from archeological works. Hausman (1930) used hair examination in his laboratory to perform archeological work, examine stomach remains, identify fur, and conduct legal proceedings.

Animal-hair studies also have been conducted within the field of forensic science. Peabody et al. (1983) determined that the medullary fraction could be used to reliably distinguish between dogs and cats. Hicks (1977) and Deedrick and Koch (2004a) described the microscopic characteristics that can be used to discriminate between animal hairs that are most likely to be encountered in forensic casework.

It is important to note that although microscopic analysis and comparison of animal hairs can be conducted, the significance ascribed to an animal-hair association often is less than that of a human-hair association. Accordingly, when an animal-hair association is reported, this decreased significance must be highlighted. For example, in a report for a dog-hair association, the FBI Laboratory would use a statement similar to the following:

It should be noted that dog hairs do not possess enough individual microscopic characteristics to associate a questioned hair to a particular dog to the exclusion of other dogs of a similar breed.

Despite the difference in the significance of animal-hair comparisons to human-hair comparisons, it does not detract from its potential usefulness in a forensic investigation. The presence of a dog hair on an item from the victim that can be microscopically associated with the known hair sample from the suspect’s dog may be very important."
- https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-...view02.htm

Oh and look. Here's a partial database right here!

https://www.omicsonline.org/articles-adm...p?aid=7573

LOL!

"The hairs were collected from the baby sheep hair, baby goat hair, bear hair, buffalo hair, deer hair, Doberman dog hair, dog hair, emu hair, flamingo feather, goat hair, Labrador dog hair, sheep hair, tiger hair from animals of Zoological park, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India."

Nowhere near every animal, genius.

And here's one for Australia!

http://www.ecobyte.com.au/index.html

LOL!

"A database of information on the hair of 110 Australian mammal species."

Of the over 5,000 mammal species.

[Magical Realist]

Contemporary to native American populations? O_o

Why not? We have contemporary gorillas and chimpanzees don't we?

"The hairs were collected from the baby sheep hair, baby goat hair, bear hair, buffalo hair, deer hair, Doberman dog hair, dog hair, emu hair, flamingo feather, goat hair, Labrador dog hair, sheep hair, tiger hair from animals of Zoological park, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India."

Nowhere near every animal, genius. Rolleyes


And here's one for Australia!

http://www.ecobyte.com.au/index.html

LOL!

"A database of information on the hair of 110 Australian mammal species."

Of the over 5,000 mammal species. Rolleyes

Which is why I said partial database...Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[Syne]

Contemporary to native American populations? O_o

Why not? We have contemporary gorillas and chimpanzees don't we?

Really? There are ""hobbit" hominid fossils found in Indonesia or the Gigantopithicus" that were contemporaries of Native Americans?

"The hairs were collected from the baby sheep hair, baby goat hair, bear hair, buffalo hair, deer hair, Doberman dog hair, dog hair, emu hair, flamingo feather, goat hair, Labrador dog hair, sheep hair, tiger hair from animals of Zoological park, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India."

Nowhere near every animal, genius.  Rolleyes


And here's one for Australia!

http://www.ecobyte.com.au/index.html

LOL!

"A database of information on the hair of 110 Australian mammal species."

Of the over 5,000 mammal species.  Rolleyes

Which is why I said partial database...Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Yet you asked: "How hard would it be to collect slides of all known mammal hairs in that database?"
And before that you claimed: "animal hair experts have whole databases containing all the mammal species and their hair samples"


Figure out what you're arguing and get back to me.

[Magical Realist]

There are ""hobbit" hominid fossils found in Indonesia or the Gigantopithicus" that were contemporaries of Native Americans?

Sure. Why not? We have Bigfoot walking around today. Why not some furry little ewoks living a thousand years ago alongside native americans?

Yet you asked: "How hard would it be to collect slides of all known mammal hairs in that database?"
And before that you claimed: "animal hair experts have whole databases containing all the mammal species and their hair samples"

And yet I said HERE is a partial database. Amazing what happens when you actually read what people write.

[Magical Realist]

Compelling and credible account by hunter Mike Wooley of two Bigfoots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18YDG_vXfc&t=17s

[Syne]

There are ""hobbit" hominid fossils found in Indonesia or the Gigantopithicus" that were contemporaries of Native Americans?

Sure. Why not? We have Bigfoot walking around today. Why not some furry little ewoks living a thousand years ago alongside native americans?

"Why not" is not an argument, much less a compelling one. But then we all know how little you understand the concept of evidence.

Yet you asked: "How hard would it be to collect slides of all known mammal hairs in that database?"
And before that you claimed: "animal hair experts have whole databases containing all the mammal species and their hair samples"

And yet I said HERE is a partial database. Amazing what happens when you actually read what people write.

So you're retracting your "whole databases containing all the mammal species and their hair samples" claim?

---

Compelling and credible account by hunter Mike Wooley of two Bigfoots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18YDG_vXfc&t=17s

LOL! He's amending his story to exaggerate it as he tells it.