We shouldn't expect to find Bigfoot bones....

[evancj]

I agree with your points but to be fair before the giant squid was actually found it was considered nonexistent by many main stream scientists. Still I think some evidence of bigfoot would have turned up by now

To be fair giant squid have been washing up on beaches long before humans existed. I don't think their existence was ever doubted, unless you believe what you read in all the crypto websites that is.

[Metatront4h]

Just an couple points to say.

Maybe bones of Bigfoot have been found. I'm actually from the Pacific Northwest in Bigfoot country. When me and my friends go out to the woods and see bones, we don't collect each one and get them checked to be big foots bones.

Secondly- I remember seeing an article before on researchers in Malaysia that have spent 15 years living in jungle studying the wildlife. This jungle is home to biggest population of tigers, yet in 15 years they have seen only 3-5 tigers. So maybe there just that few of them and they are smart.

Also If you ever been to PAC north you would realize it is definetly not that populated and there are plenty of places to hide and keep away from humans. And the argument as to why no ones run into them is ridiculous. Thousands of people claim to see Bigfoot and I am positive more dont claim to see him even tho they have.

Food for thought.

[spacecowboy342]

To be fair giant squid have been washing up on beaches long before humans existed. I don't think their existence was ever doubted, unless you believe what you read in all the crypto websites that is.

In 1861 a portion was found which lead to wider acceptance in scientific circles, Before that it was considered a myth by many. Unless you have other information?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Yet another attempt to "prove" BigFoot does not exist by predicting things about BF behavior that are *assumed* to be the same for other creatures. In this case, you assume that BF stays in a given area of the wild and will die there, too, like a bear.

OP, your arguement is about as pervasive as the argument that, since BF has never been shot or captured, it cannot exist.

All of your arguments are wonderful, but you forget one thing, one very important thing,

you have never prooved that BF is "just like all the others", you only *assume* it is like the others,

therefor, we can't shoot it, we can't capture it, we don't find bones of it means exactly,, diddly squat.

It could be like saying that since we don't find whale bones in the middle of the woods like we do bear bones, whales do not exist.

Sorry, my man, bogus claim. Your claim *may* turn out to be true in the end but you cannot say it *is* true with the information at hand. Since we know nothing about BF, we cannot claim with any certainty that it does or does not behave/react like other animals.

All of your arguments are good except for that. prove to me that BF does behave/react like other animals and then I will believe you when you say BF does not exist.

I became so certain over the years that BF *does* exist I have reasoned that in order for it to exist, it must in fact have some defense mechanism that allows it to evade humans perfectly (so far).

Some American Indians believe that the BF is not only a type (species) of man, they believe it can transcend dimensions, too.

As ridiculous as that may sound, it still may be true, we have no real way to know until we do capture BF.

[Skep B]

Did I miss something and Bigfoot has become an aquatic mammal?

[evancj]

In 1861 a portion was found which lead to wider acceptance in scientific circles, Before that it was considered a myth by many. Unless you have other information?

Specimens have been found and documented for hundreds of years. There is an extensive list of the here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_giant_squid_specimens_and_sightings

Aristotle described them over 2,000 years ago. See the link below.

http://invertebrates.si.edu/giant_squid/page2.html

[evancj]

Just an couple points to say.

Maybe bones of Bigfoot have been found. I'm actually from the Pacific Northwest in Bigfoot country. When me and my friends go out to the woods and see bones, we don't collect each one and get them checked to be big foots bones.

Secondly- I remember seeing an article before on researchers in Malaysia that have spent 15 years living in jungle studying the wildlife. This jungle is home to biggest population of tigers, yet in 15 years they have seen only 3-5 tigers.

You need to check your source on the Malaysian Tiger. There is only an estimated 500 left because of poaching and habitat destruction. Someone must be seeing them in order to poach the to the point of near extinction.

So maybe there just that few of them and they are smart.

Supernatural is more like it. Even geniuses screw-up and make mistakes.

Also If you ever been to PAC north you would realize it is definetly not that populated and there are plenty of places to hide and keep away from humans. And the argument as to why no ones run into them is ridiculous. Thousands of people claim to see Bigfoot and I am positive more dont claim to see him even tho they have.

Food for thought.

I lived in the PNW for 13 years and it is quite heavily populated compared to the interior western and Midwestern states. Lot of folks out and about in the wood, and mountains all the time.

[spacecowboy342]

Specimens have been found and documented for hundreds of years. There is an extensive list of the here;

http://en.wikipedia....s_and_sightings

Aristotle described them over 2,000 years ago. See the link below.

http://invertebrates...quid/page2.html

Thanks for the link. i stand corrected on what I thought was the earliest confirmed find. As far as Aristotle however I would hardly call him credible given some of his other statements

[cacoseraph]

Maybe Bigfeet have had science more advanced than the ancient world and thus manufacture acids capable of dissolving their bones. Before like 1500AD the strongest acid was something like vinegar. Pair advanced science discovered thousands of years before the putatively more intelligent humans and a belief system akin to something like Zoroastrianism (dead bodies like, pollute the purity of the world so getting rid of them as completely and cleverly as possible is a good thing) and boop, there you go. Problem solved.

history of acid: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/tcaw/12/i03/pdf/303chronicles.pdf

Zoro's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Zoro's' Towers of Silence (pretty interesting read): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Silence

[spacecowboy342]

Maybe Bigfeet have had science more advanced than the ancient world and thus manufacture acids capable of dissolving their bones. Before like 1500AD the strongest acid was something like vinegar. Pair advanced science discovered thousands of years before the putatively more intelligent humans and a belief system akin to something like Zoroastrianism (dead bodies like, pollute the purity of the world so getting rid of them as completely and cleverly as possible is a good thing) and boop, there you go. Problem solved.

history of acid: http://pubs.acs.org/...3chronicles.pdf

Zoro's: http://en.wikipedia..../Zoroastrianism

Zoro's' Towers of Silence (pretty interesting read): http://en.wikipedia....ower_of_Silence

You'd think they would have invented big shoes

[cacoseraph]

You'd think they would have invented big shoes

Maybe they use those awful toe clinging shoes. An advanced rubber/textile industry would be facilitated by their clearly self evident possession of advanced acids.

[Metatront4h]

You need to check your source on the Malaysian Tiger. There is only an estimated 500 left because of poaching and habitat destruction. Someone must be seeing them in order to poach the to the point of near extinction.

Supernatural is more like it. Even geniuses screw-up and make mistakes.

I lived in the PNW for 13 years and it is quite heavily populated compared to the interior western and Midwestern states. Lot of folks out and about in the wood, and mountains all the time.

Not sure if it Malaysia or another country, point was even with a known species like tiger, still sightings and finding something that doesn't want to be found is difficult.

And you obviously sheltered yourself to big cities alone such as seattle cause eastern Washington, along with the mountains are very very vast of un-inhabited forests that few (relative to population of state) go into. And high percentage of the ones that do privately claim to have seen Bigfoot. I have also lived across Midwest and though there are areas of forests, they don't compare to the forests of Washington that would allow a creature like Bigfoot to exist.

And your right they do screw up, they get seen. Alot.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Metatront4h

[evancj]

Yet another attempt to "prove" BigFoot does not exist by predicting things about BF behavior that are *assumed* to be the same for other creatures.

Which is exactly what the believers do. If this is not a logical baseline then what is?

In this case, you assume that BF stays in a given area of the wild and will die there, too, like a bear.

Where else would they go to die? The spaceship? The other dimension? Or are you suggesting they are immortal?

OP, your arguement is about as pervasive as the argument that, since BF has never been shot or captured, it cannot exist.

All of your arguments are wonderful, but you forget one thing, one very important thing,

you have never prooved that BF is "just like all the others", you only *assume* it is like the others,

therefor, we can't shoot it, we can't capture it, we don't find bones of it means exactly,, diddly squat.

Please enlighten us...what are they like?

It could be like saying that since we don't find whale bones in the middle of the woods like we do bear bones, whales do not exist.

Really? Whale bones found in Michigan.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

Sorry, my man, bogus claim. Your claim *may* turn out to be true in the end but you cannot say it *is* true with the information at hand. Since we know nothing about BF, we cannot claim with any certainty that it does or does not behave/react like other animals.

All of your arguments are good except for that. prove to me that BF does behave/react like other animals and then I will believe you when you say BF does not exist.

I became so certain over the years that BF *does* exist I have reasoned that in order for it to exist, it must in fact have some defense mechanism that allows it to evade humans perfectly (so far).

Yet you seem so certain that you know what your saying you don't know.

Some American Indians believe that the BF is not only a type (species) of man, they believe it can transcend dimensions, too.

As ridiculous as that may sound, it still may be true, we have no real way to know until we do capture BF.

Native American myths and legends are more times than not just as absurd any other ethnic or cultural myths and legends.

Read some if you don't believe me.

http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/native-american-myths/

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/Legends-AB.html

[Wyverna]

I agree with your points but to be fair before the giant squid was actually found it was considered nonexistent by many main stream scientists. Still I think some evidence of bigfoot would have turned up by now

Yes, it was considered nonexistent.

Until physical evidence showed up and confirmed the Giant Squid was real.

That's the point I'm really trying to emphasize. The Giant Squid used to be rumored but not confirmed. Then we got concrete proof that it existed. Proof. From deep in the ocean. You know, the place humans can almost never go to. But we still got evidence, despite their rarity and where they live. Now we know Giant Squids are really swimming around in our oceans and they're not just some fairy tale.

Bigfoot is rumored to exist but there's no physical evidence to support it. Even if it does live in the forest where there's not many people, if we can get bodies of Giant Squids from the ocean's depths, then I'm pretty sure we can get bodies of Bigfoot from the forests in one of the world's most populated countries.

[evancj]

Thanks for the link. i stand corrected on what I thought was the earliest confirmed find. As far as Aristotle however I would hardly call him credible given some of his other statements

I would say he is credible on the account as his description was later proved to be accurate.

[Metatront4h]

if we can get bodies of Giant Squids from the ocean's depths, then I'm pretty sure we can get bodies of Bigfoot from the forests in one of the world's most populated countries.[/b]

Well that's not exactly true. Squids die and there body floats around and gets caught or washes up. Or we get them out of the belly's of whales who eat them. Not necassarily the case that can happen with Bigfoot. And again maybe there are remains. But do you take every set of bones you find in the woods and examine them and take them to get examined? If so that's kind of weird but good for you, most people don't, and see bones and just leave them be.

Another explanation could be some kind of ceremonial they do for there dead. Like burials. Chimpanzees, elephants and ants bury there dead.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Metatront4h

[cacoseraph]

Big foot bones, especially of immatures (supposed matures are more than 6' tall) would extremely similar to human bones. Most human bones of any size are pretty familiar to even lay ppl. Heck, it is not uncommon for certain bones of other animals to be mistaken for human bones. When human bones are found ppl generally report them. It is not like most other carcasses or bone remains of natural/(real) animals that people expect to find and would ignore.

Skulls and pelvises, especially, I think would make quite the spectacle if found.

I'll give bigfooters help with why we might not find intact skulls. Maybe their skulls are similar to ours in that when they are born they are made of several plates of bone, but unlike ours, the plates never fuse to one solid skull shape.

[evancj]

Yes, it was considered nonexistent.

Until physical evidence showed up and confirmed the Giant Squid was real.

That's the point I'm really trying to emphasize. The Giant Squid used to be rumored but not confirmed. Then we got concrete proof that it existed. Proof. From deep in the ocean. You know, the place humans can almost never go to. But we still got evidence, despite their rarity and where they live. Now we know Giant Squids are really swimming around in our oceans and they're not just some fairy tale.

And who were these people that thought the giant squid was a fairy tail exactly? Do you have a reference?

Bigfoot is rumored to exist but there's no physical evidence to support it. Even if it does live in the forest where there's not many people, if we can get bodies of Giant Squids from the ocean's depths, then I'm pretty sure we can get bodies of Bigfoot from the forests in one of the world's most populated countries.

Go back and read the links I provided. We have been finding and documenting their bodies for over 500 hundred years.

[Insanity]

I agree with Overdueleaf and Leonardo in that the discovery of these particular bear's remains, which would have been fairly easy, are not proof against the possible existence of a yet unknown species. The bear was collared for 32 years, the researchers probably had a good idea as to the bear's range and location. The researchers may have even guessed it had died if the signal's location remained in the same spot too long, and thus decided to go find the bear. I've wondered as to how many bear or deer carcasses are found each year?

And how intact was the carcass? The article doesn't say.

I did find two other articles that do mention the condition; World's oldest-known wild black bear dies in US forest and World's Oldest Bear Dies in Minn. Woods | Valley News. The Valley News site seems to let you read the article once, than require registering to read it again. Odd policy to me, but at least I could copy the text from it. I only quoted a small bit below.

The first article says it was decomposed, the Valley News says "Noyce retrieved a few bones upon discovery. State researchers will collect the rest of the remains soon."

A bear can decomposed to not much more than bones, fur/skin in about four or five weeks without scavengers involved, at least during the summer months.

[keninsc]

This is one of the points that you can't just blow off easily. Not only has no one found Bigfoot bones from a dead one, but no one has ever found any in the fossil record. At least in North America.

I have shake my head at the reasons offered up by the die hard believers. Porcupines, they bury their dead, then there's the running joke here about the infamous Bigfoot Body Recovery Team.

[Q-C]

Collectively, hundreds of years and thousands of hours have been devoted to finding evidence of this creature, where activity is known. That is, the bigfoot we are told about. The one in all the reports.

A zoologically sound animal, reported all over the USA and Canada who

howls and chatters

knocks on wood

builds nests

is territorial and throws rocks

crosses highways, farmer's fields and backyards

lives and moves around where humans live and move around

must eat, sleep, breed, shed, and such

A lack of physical evidence may not be used to prove the creature does not exist, but doesn't it weaken the case for this creature's existence, even severely so?

Edited August 29, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[keninsc]

I'd say it does and my only real holdout would be if Bigfoots did something like eat their dead.

[cacoseraph]

Generally cannibals don't wholly consume their dead. We have evidence from dozens to thousands of years ago of humans and near humans gnawing on the bones of their dead. Why evidence from such a big time range but not from poor Hairy Harry who died and got chomped a few months ago?

[keninsc]

I was just pointing out that Bigfoots might do something with their dead that we aren't aware of. Even if they buried them, someone would have unearthed one by now.

[Leonardo]

Collectively, hundreds of years and thousands of hours have been devoted to finding evidence of this creature, where activity is known. That is, the bigfoot we are told about. The one in all the reports.

A zoologically sound animal, reported all over the USA and Canada who

howls and chatters

knocks on wood

builds nests

is territorial and throws rocks

crosses highways, farmer's fields and backyards

lives and moves around where humans live and move around

must eat, sleep, breed, shed, and such

A lack of physical evidence may not be used to prove the creature does not exist, but doesn't it weaken the case for this creature's existence, even severely so?

Yes, it does weaken the case. But that does not suggest the case is dead, as Rafterman et al suggest. That was the point I was making in my rebuttal of his claims. That lack of evidence of a singular aspect of the creatures alleged existence does not constitute 'proof' (as was claimed) the species does not exist.

Nothing constitutes 'proof' of a species non-existence as you cannot prove a negative.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Leonardo