Two men film alleged 'Bigfoot' in Ohio woods

[stereologist]

Just now, WanderingFool0 said:

But, you know as well as I do that fossils are hit and miss and only a tiny fractional snapshot of the animals alive in any given period. Often the fossils we have found were animals that were submerged in flooding incidents and other disasters.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/incomplete-fossil-record.htm

So zero fossils of apes in North America across millions of years is meaningless? I don't think so. The fossil record shows nothing. Yet, we find ancient man when they came here. 

There is zero for fossils for large apes. There are no bodies. Nothing is found. There is nothing at all. You are welcome to provide some evidence. So far it has been the same excuses which is all there seems to  be.

Here is yet another article about finding dead bears. We know people find dead bears because they are reported to the authorities.

http://www.montanaoutdoor.com/2012/11/bear-paw-or-human-hand/

Your link to the incomplete fossil record does not tell us why no fossils are found of large apes in North America. No apes are found in the past or now. The fossil record shows that there were camels here and horses here but no apes. There are no fossils of the supposed BF and there are no fossils of other apes.

 

[WanderingFool0]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So zero fossils of apes in North America across millions of years is meaningless? I don't think so. The fossil record shows nothing. Yet, we find ancient man when they came here. 

There is zero for fossils for large apes. There are no bodies. Nothing is found. There is nothing at all. You are welcome to provide some evidence. So far it has been the same excuses which is all there seems to  be.

Here is yet another article about finding dead bears. We know people find dead bears because they are reported to the authorities.

http://www.montanaoutdoor.com/2012/11/bear-paw-or-human-hand/

Your link to the incomplete fossil record does not tell us why no fossils are found of large apes in North America. No apes are found in the past or now. The fossil record shows that there were camels here and horses here but no apes. There are no fossils of the supposed BF and there are no fossils of other apes.

 

I didn't say it was meaningless, but absence of fossils also doesn't mean absence of the species. See my point about the phantom hominid.

Quote

An ancient, humanlike population still undiscovered in fossils left a genetic legacy in present-day West Africans, a new study suggests.

These extinct relatives of Homo sapiens passed genes to African ancestors of modern Yoruba and Mende people starting around 124,000 years ago or later, say UCLA geneticists Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman. Surviving DNA of those ancient hominids is different enough from that of Neandertals and Denisovans to suggest an entirely different hominid was the source.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/some-west-africans-may-have-dna-genes-ancient-ghost-hominid

Edited February 26, 2020 by WanderingFool0
bolding

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I would also add that with some of the genetic research going on with humans, shows there is at least one currently unknown hominid that was able to leave it's dna fingerprint on humanity, but also as of yet we have no fossils for. How many other species of unknown hominids were in the past? We don't know. It suggests maybe humanity needs to do more calculated and random digging to find more currently undiscovered fossils to add to our record and thus continue to fine tune it.

And where was this input? And what time frame?

Did you now that there were attempts to crossbreed gorillas and chimps with humans? Here are some chimp examples.

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

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientist-claims-us-lab-engineered-humanzee-human-chimp-hybrid-100-years-ago-gallup-yerkes-oliver

It did not work. We are not close enough related. It would take a hominid.

There is no evidence at all for BF. No fossils, no scat, no hair, no DNA, nothing. 

[WanderingFool0]

Just now, stereologist said:

And where was this input? And what time frame?

Did you now that there were attempts to crossbreed gorillas and chimps with humans? Here are some chimp examples.

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

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientist-claims-us-lab-engineered-humanzee-human-chimp-hybrid-100-years-ago-gallup-yerkes-oliver

It did not work. We are not close enough related. It would take a hominid.

There is no evidence at all for BF. No fossils, no scat, no hair, no DNA, nothing. 

what are talking about? I am not talking about gentic engineering and crossbreeding. I am talking about the genetic research into human dna that has revealed a phantom hominid.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I didn't say it was meaningless, but absence of fossils also doesn't mean absence of the species. See my point about the phantom hominid.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/some-west-africans-may-have-dna-genes-ancient-ghost-hominid

There are no ape fossils. There is nothing suggesting any ape ever lived in North America. There is nothing from a long time ago to today.

All the following article tells us is that there was a greater diversity of hominid life in Africa, not other parts of the world, than expected. As we see there are hints of the existence of these other hominids.

But Africa has fossils of apes. 

[stereologist]

Just now, WanderingFool0 said:

what are talking about? I am not talking about gentic engineering and crossbreeding. I am talking about the genetic research into human dna that has revealed a phantom hominid.

I'm saying that there is no evidence of anything hominid in North America and your article did not show that there were hominids outside of the known area.

[WanderingFool0]

Just now, stereologist said:

There are no ape fossils. There is nothing suggesting any ape ever lived in North America. There is nothing from a long time ago to today.

All the following article tells us is that there was a greater diversity of hominid life in Africa, not other parts of the world, than expected. As we see there are hints of the existence of these other hominids.

But Africa has fossils of apes. 

But it doesn't exclude it. The reason I pointed that article out, is because if we follow your reasoning that a lack of fossils means a lack of a species existing, than it would follow that, since we don't have fossils for that phantom hominid, it to would not exist, But DNA research suggests that reasoning would be faulty.

[stereologist]

There is zero evidence for BF. 

No fossils. No blood. No DNA. No scat. No hair. No bones. No teeth. Nothing.

[WanderingFool0]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

There is zero evidence for BF. 

No fossils. No blood. No DNA. No scat. No hair. No bones. No teeth. Nothing.

That is true. but, it doesn't mean your assertion is correct either, it just means we lack evidence.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by WanderingFool0
correction

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, WanderingFool0 said:

But it doesn't exclude it. The reason I pointed that article out, is because if we follow your reasoning that a lack of fossils means a lack of a species existing, than it would follow that, since we don't have fossils for that phantom hominid, it to would not exist, But DNA research suggests that reasoning would be faulty.

I am not talking about " a lack of fossils means a lack of a species existing" 

I am saying that a lack of fossils exists for the entire evolution of apes in North America. There are no fossils suggesting anything like an ape lived in North America. 

The phantom hominid is just another of a large and growing list of hominids that lived in Africa. 

You are basically arguing that you are wrong. You say that hominids leave evidence of their existence but can't show any evidence for the existence of BF.

 

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

That is true. but, it doesn't mean your assertion is correct either, it just means we lack evidence.

 

Show some evidence instead of continuing to point out that the evidence for apes only exists in the Old World.

[WanderingFool0]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Show some evidence instead of continuing to point out that the evidence for apes only exists in the Old World.

How would I point out evidence when from my first post I said I was agnostic on bigfoot. If you missed that start with my first post. I was just offering alternative explanations on how it could be possible for a species like bigfoot especially if they were a hominid ,might be more difficult to detect than other large mammals.

Edited February 27, 2020 by WanderingFool0
correction

[stereologist]

As I pointed out earlier people do find bears dead. Grover Krantz was dead wrong when he claimed no one finds dead bears.

There are no dead BF from floods, fires, storms, cold, or other disasters.

There are no burials of dead BF found. Yet we find thousands of years old dead humans in North America.

There are claims of being intelligent yet there are all sorts of blob squatch photos and there is no evidence of tool usage or the building of lairs.

The use of eDNA is mysteriously quiet. The money has been raised. The samples have been sent for testing. Stunning silence about the results.

[stereologist]

Just now, WanderingFool0 said:

How would point out evidence when from my first post I said I was agnostic on bigfoot. If you missed that start with my first post. I was just offering alternative explanations on how it could be possible for a species like bigfoot especially if they were a hominid might be more difficult to detect than other large mammals.

I have seen nothing but excuses and none are any good.

As you point out fossils are rare and yet hominids are found every year in Africa. Nothing has been found in North America. There are no apes in the New World. The fossil record shows no apes. There is fossil evidence going back to the arrival of the new world monkeys. No apes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_monkey#Origin

As you point out hominids leave evidence of their existence yet there is none for BF.

 

[WanderingFool0]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

As I pointed out earlier people do find bears dead. Grover Krantz was dead wrong when he claimed no one finds dead bears.

There are no dead BF from floods, fires, storms, cold, or other disasters.

There are no burials of dead BF found. Yet we find thousands of years old dead humans in North America.

There are claims of being intelligent yet there are all sorts of blob squatch photos and there is no evidence of tool usage or the building of lairs.

The use of eDNA is mysteriously quiet. The money has been raised. The samples have been sent for testing. Stunning silence about the results.

I see you claiming a lack of evidence of bigfoot means bigfoot doesn't exist. How is that not what i said about a lack of fossils meaning the lack of existence of a species?

[WanderingFool0]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

I have seen nothing but excuses and none are any good.

As you point out fossils are rare and yet hominids are found every year in Africa. Nothing has been found in North America. There are no apes in the New World. The fossil record shows no apes. There is fossil evidence going back to the arrival of the new world monkeys. No apes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_monkey#Origin

As you point out hominids leave evidence of their existence yet there is none for BF.

 

Yes fossils of hominids are found every year. Show me the fossils of the phantom hominid.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I see you claiming a lack of evidence of bigfoot means bigfoot doesn't exist. How is that not what i said about a lack of fossils meaning the lack of existence of a species?

No. I am saying that there is no evidence for BF no matter where you look.

You seem to think that I meant specifically a lack of BF fossils. I meant any fossils anywhere in North America that would anything becoming an ape. That's 40 million years with no ape fossils.

Even the fossil record is against BF along with all of the other evidence against there being BF.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Yes fossils of hominids are found every year. Show me the fossils of the phantom hominid.

Why? All I have to do is show that there are hominids in Africa. 

I show you one hominid fossil in Africa and you show me one in the New World.

[WanderingFool0]

Just now, stereologist said:

Why? All I have to do is show that there are hominids in Africa. 

I show you one hominid fossil in Africa and you show me one in the New World.

Because, if we have no fossils for the phantom hominid and yet they lived, leaving no fossils that we have found. Than bigfoot and even hominids and apes could have lived in north america and like the phantom hominid left no trace that we have found yet.

[WanderingFool0]

And really most fossil; discoveries are an accident. We might just not have had a happy accident that leads to the finding of the fossils of hominids in the New World.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Because, if we have no fossils for the phantom hominid and yet they lived, leaving no fossils that we have found. Than bigfoot and even hominids and apes could have lived in north america and like the phantom hominid left no trace that we have found yet.

The phantom hominid is a hominid. There are plenty of fossils of hominids in Africa. Show  me any fossils in North America from not just a hominid but from any organism that leads to an ape.

You ask for a specific fossil for no apparent reason and I ask for any fossil at al that is an ancestor of an ape in the New World.

Your argument is of no value.

 

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

And really most fossil; discoveries are an accident. We might just not have had a happy accident that leads to the finding of the fossils of hominids in the New World.

That's not true at all. Fossils are found because the searchers look specifically for rocks of the right age and of the right type.

You don't look for hominid fossils in a marine sediment.

You don't look for hominid fossils in igneous rocks.

You don't look for hominid fossils in Cretaceous rocks.

Recent finds of paleoindian sites in BC was done by finding places where sea level rise was matched by isostacy uplift making ancient shorelines the same as modern ones.

[stereologist]

12 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Because, if we have no fossils for the phantom hominid and yet they lived, leaving no fossils that we have found. Than bigfoot and even hominids and apes could have lived in north america and like the phantom hominid left no trace that we have found yet.

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

I see you can't understand the basic idea. Let me tell you again.

There are many different hominid fossils in Africa. There are 0 ape fossils in North America.

Who cares if 1 hypothetical specie has no fossil counterpart.

It does matter if there is no evidence for apes ever in the entire western hemisphere.

 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

I see you can't understand the basic idea. Let me tell you again.

There are many different hominid fossils in Africa. There are 0 ape fossils in North America.

Who cares if 1 hypothetical specie has no fossil counterpart.

It does matter if there is no evidence for apes ever in the entire western hemisphere.

 

Stereo, you gave it a valiant effort, but he doesn't get it.    His phantom hominid existed how many years ago?    Bigfoot supposedly still exists yet nothing has been found.   

I hate to bring this up, but by his logic leprechauns may exist since not finding evidence doesn't mean much.   

[WanderingFool0]

33 minutes ago, Myles said:

Stereo, you gave it a valiant effort, but he doesn't get it.    His phantom hominid existed how many years ago?    Bigfoot supposedly still exists yet nothing has been found.   

I hate to bring this up, but by his logic leprechauns may exist since not finding evidence doesn't mean much.   

Oh I get it. I also still get lack of evidence for something, doesn't actually mean what he wants it to mean. It just means there is a lack of evidence. I also get that, for some reason my being agnostic on bigfoot somehow, is ruffling his feathers and his need to somehow convert me to his position, seems to be very important. Being agnostic on bigfoot, I don't mind his belief that bigfoot doesn't exist, I don't mind a believers belief that they do either, not sure why position of not knowing either way seems to cause much trouble for people.

Edited February 27, 2020 by WanderingFool0
correction