Crowlogic's extinct Bigfoot thread

[Mad Hom]

What I would love to know is how does log account for all the sightings claims, footprints, etc, proclaimed by proponents of bigfoot's existence as being evidence since the extinction she conjectures in the early twentieth century. Has she said anything of it here? I don't think so. How about at the BFF? Has she ventured to tell the crowd there of the situation regarding the body of evidence?

Geeez Louise Kit...why must Extinction Fan elaborate much more than simply stating that given the Ph levels of upstate NY 25 years ago I now BLEEV Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size to have gone extinct in the early twentieth century.

Bigfoot Nation doesn't trouble itself with much more than just babbling out a take.....all this semantic side BS you keep asking for mostly just muddies the waters with facts and logic....why you insist on any of this information is beyond me.

As an aside...here's hoping this extinction business doesn't catch on within the ranks of Bigfoot Nation....imagine dealing with a mass of people who Bleev that Bigfoot went extinct without ever having been proven to exist in the first place....egads...it boggles the mind....I can hear the Tru Bleever chorus now...

Oh Yeah!??!...Well prove they didn't go extinct than!!!

 

[Mad Hom]

Lodge-
was there one factor that you have thought might have led to their extinction?
was it disease? or drought? why would an animal that had live for many years, just suddenly die out in the early 20th century? were they tied to the Buffalo? or did pesticides destroy their egg-laying capability?
Which story do you believe-in?

Why yes Drew there is a factor that led to their extinction

It's called...the camera....

 

[kitakaze]

imagine dealing with a mass of people who Bleev that Bigfoot went extinct without ever having been proven to exist in the first place....egads...it boggles the mind....I can hear the Tru Bleever chorus now...

Oh Yeah!??!...Well prove they didn't go extinct than!!!

It will be the greatest footer war ever. Better than a kill/no kill grudge match. Better than a paranormal/flesh and blood melee. Better than intelligent ape/relict Homo bar brawl. The Livons will face the Extinctors and there will be blood. It will be a cabellera contra cabellera the likes of which bigfootery has never seen and any skeptic rudos who get stuck in the middle are going to get crushed!

 

[EHocking]

Yes, but it's not really an answer to the question I posed. Did Audubon illustrate any mammal species or subspecies which are now classified as extinct? I think he did not.

It's possible that he may have.

It was always a matter of what he found and was able to shoot. The dead animal specimen was his "life" model.

Drew, we lost some true mammal species as well as subspecies, of which Audubon did not illustrate. He was working at a time before Charles Darwin introduced his theories of speciation, and so there was no biological concept of what it means to be a species let alone a subspecies. His illustrations are so accurate and detailed that we can now look at them and make meaningful determinations of whether or not he was working with what we now classify as subspecies.

AFAIK, he did not miss any species (subspecies always being a subset of species) of mammal larger than a coyote.

The three that I can find that have gone extinct since Audubon's time are:

Eastern Elk Cervus canadensis canadiensis - extinct 1880
Sea Mink Mustela macrodon - extinct 1860
Caribbean Monk Seal Monachus tropicalis - extinct 1952

Of those, Audubon only painted the American Elk - Wapiti Deer Cervus canadensis). Which may or may not have been identified in his time as a subspecies. The Wiki entry uses this print as "Audubon's "Eastern Elk" which is now extinct." (but that *is* Wiki...).
You could argue that the species still exists, and he did not paint the subspecies, but he certainly missed the Mink and the Seal

The devoted Bigfooter is forced to disagree and say that he simply didn't bag and illustrate a Bigfoot. That leads to questions about why the Native Americans and European settlers did not, or were not, able to convince him that a wild hairy bipedal ape was a genuine member of the biodiversity.

Here is a list of the 150 mammals that he did paint for "The Viviparous quadrupeds of North America (1845-48"
Note that this was only over a period of 3 years, so it's quite likely that he missed a few. He only had Black Bear for instance.

 

[William Parcher]

You could argue that the species still exists, and he did not paint the subspecies, but he certainly missed the Mink and the Seal
Here is a list of the 150 mammals that he did paint for "The Viviparous quadrupeds of North America (1845-48"

Note that this was only over a period of 3 years, so it's quite likely that he missed a few. He only had Black Bear for instance.

The list you linked is not complete, as it's a sale list and some plates are not offered. He did illustrate all the bear species (Black, Grizzly and Polar), and even did the Cinnamon Bear which is a color variant of the Black Bear. He illustrated a total of 155 plates. He duplicates some mammals, so it isn't really 155 different species.

He did not do the Sea Mink or Caribbean Monk Seal which are now extinct. Actually, he did none of the North American pinnipeds. Given that, I think I was right (all species larger than a coyote).

You can see all of them here. Scroll down.

ETA: Oops, I just now noticed that I was wrong on at least one count. He missed the Dall Sheep.

 

[kitakaze]

Why does a lady who calls herself a skeptic while also being of the opinion that bigfoot went extinct in the early twentieth century start a thread at the BFF bigfoot enthusiast forum entitled Bigfoot raiding field crops? with this OP?:

Since its generally assumed that Bigfoot is an omnivoure I'm surprised that there aren't more reports of seeing them or thier tracks aroun crop fields. There are thousands of rural farms in this country and wildlife of all kinds visit as opportunists with many becoming pests in the process. Seems to me a stealthy intelligent primate would have made good use of this free bounty . Specifically rural farms in where there is Bigfoot activity should be getting many hits. Any thoughts?

Call me a cynic but this doesn't strike me as forthrightness.

 

[Mad Hom]

Why does a lady who calls herself a skeptic while also being of the opinion that bigfoot went extinct in the early twentieth century start a thread at the BFF bigfoot enthusiast forum entitled Bigfoot raiding field crops? with this OP?:

Call me a cynic but this doesn't strike me as forthrightness.

That's it...I'm calling shenanigans on Crow's "Extinction" take....either your a Livon or your an Extinctor.......a long extinct Bigfeetsus cannot raid field crops....or can it....Hmmmm....maybe these crop raiding Hairy Bipedal Hooligans are the ghosts of long dead Bigfeets....yeah that's the ticket.

Mr Beckjord.....you have a call on line one...it's Crow.

 

[kitakaze]

What I would love to know is how does log account for all the sightings claims, footprints, etc, proclaimed by proponents of bigfoot's existence as being evidence since the extinction she conjectures in the early twentieth century. Has she said anything of it here? I don't think so. How about at the BFF? Has she ventured to tell the crowd there of the situation regarding the body of evidence?

I still have yet to find what I was thinking of but here at least are a couple of posts from last year at the BFF with log explaining her skepticism:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19267&view=findpost&p=392588

For sure there are legions of Sasquatch/Bigfoot reports. But that is what they are reports, and we are left with precious little more than the reports.

It is/was a lot easier for me to consider Sasquatch as potentially being real when the reports were isolated and from geographic locations that made sense by their remoteness and unspoiled character. That almost all of the lower 48 states has reports makes the creature too numerous and common to have escaped bonified detection or capture. FOr instance it would be like Mountain Gorillia reports turning up in Central Park during the days before the actual animal was discovered for certain and was still only a legend eminating from a specific geographic region.

If one is to play the numbers game then there are several thousand of these creatures scattered over the lower 48 states. As such the chance opportunity to get proof positive is not nearly as remote as the results would seem to suggest. Yet the results are very thin indeed.

One way to approach rariety and the odds potential of getting a proof heavy sighting is to look at the classic car community. As an example I'll use a certain variety of early Jaguar called the SS 100. The SS 100 was made during the 1930's and only about 300 were made. World wide today there are around 200 surviving examples and they are highly sought after collector cars. YOur chances of seeing an SS 100 driving down the road or in the parking lot of the local Walmart are virtually non existant. However. If you travel in the right automotive environment you can come face to face with a genuine SS 100. But you won't find one at the local hot rod cruise night or at 99% of the car show venues that take place across the country ever year. But had Jaguar made 500,000 SS 100 cars they would be as common as old Corvettes and Thunderbirds and yes you'd see them frequently.

So I tend to believe that Sasquatch dosen't hide any better or any worse than any other primate and we don't find them because they aren't there. So just as you have to get out of the Walmart parking lot to see certain rare gems of automotive art you have to trek what's left the real hinterland just like Patterson and Gimlin did in 1967. The creature they filmed was anything but stealthy or color blending into the area where it was filmed.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19267&view=findpost&p=392808

I'm not a disbeliever. I'm a skeptic and I believe there is a difference between skeptisism and disbelief. The UFO enigma shows us a lot about folklore, myth making, and belief. In the beginning of the modern UFO era in 1947 the
genre of sightings were that of nocturnal lights and daytime objects described as nuts and bolts craft of some sort. Howrver as time passed the genre evoloved in ways that compensated for the lack hard physical evidence for the existance of UFO's. That is to say UFO's began to acquire traits that would explain why we never get the hard evidence such as the ability to dissolve physically or transmute. At some point I said to myself there is simply way too much going on here in terms of what these things do and also what they look like. There are thousands of UFO photos showing uniquely different objects. This is like saying that we have a fleet of Space Shuttles numbering in the hundreds and all of them are different. Of course there is the outright UFO hoaxes that don't help the situation for anyone.

In terms of Sasquatach my view is that an enigmia that remains simple and localized (like the Mountain Gorilla, Florida Skunk Ape) just may have the potential for being real. THis is why the origional Pacific Northwest sightings made the most sense to me and still do. But as the lore has expanded to include an aray of regions and potential sub species that leads me to think again that there's too much going on with it, its too complex, and too widespread for researchers to perpetually come up empty handed. With nearly 50 states reporting sightings a careless Sasquatach should have found itself in the sights of a weapon wielded by someone willing to pull the trigger, or a tractor trailer collision.

So in conclusion my position is

1 Sasquatch is rare and confined to the mountain regions of the remote Rockies, Pacific Northwest and Canada
2 A large primate may inhabit certain swampy regions of the deep south
3 Neither Skunk Ape or Sasquatch are as large as sometimes reported.

That's why I wouldn't invest resources in tramping around in OHIO or the NJ Pine Barrens.

Still haven't found on what she bases the opinion that bigfoot ever did exist and how that opinion isn't based on belief.

 

[EHocking]

The list you linked is not complete, as it's a sale list and some plates are not offered. He did illustrate all the bear species (Black, Grizzly and Polar), and even did the Cinnamon Bear which is a color variant of the Black Bear. He illustrated a total of 155 plates. He duplicates some mammals, so it isn't really 155 different species.

He did not do the Sea Mink or Caribbean Monk Seal which are now extinct. Actually, he did none of the North American pinnipeds. Given that, I think I was right (all species larger than a coyote).

You can see all of them here. Scroll down.

ETA: Oops, I just now noticed that I was wrong on at least one count. He missed the Dall Sheep.

But I can see the argument being put forward by the Footers. It's exactly the incorrect argument Creationists use wrt the gaps in the fossil record, along the lines of "AHA! The record is incomplete which PROVES that Bigfoot could have existed/Evolution is wrong".

I was just as intrigued as you were when you commented on the reference to Audubon.

 

[Drewbot]

Are you saying that there is a lost Audubon sketch of Sasquatch? And that Bigfooters have conspired to 'misplace' it in order to prove the 'extinctionists' are wrong?

Or are you saying that, if there was a Sasquatch then Audubon would have painted it? Therefore since he didn't paint it, there is no Sasquatch?

of course it that is the case, then the Dall Sheep never existed either.

 

[Gevaudan]

Just guessing here, but does the discovery of Homo floresiensis have anything to do with this? I suspect the reasoning goes like this:

1. There are legends in Indonesia of a tiny, hair-covered humanoid creature called ebu gogo.

2. In 2003, anthropologists discover the skeletal remains of a three foot tall, ape-faced creature that seems to be a dwarfed version of Homo erectus on the Indonesian island of Flores. It is thought to have survived until as recently as 12,000 years ago and to have existed alongside modern humans.

3. It is possible H. floresiensis survived for longer than that and inspired the native legend of ebu gogo.

So far, so good. There's no solid physical evidence but it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. But then we get . . .

3. Sasquatch is also a legendary hairy humanoid creature that no one seems to be able to find evidence of.

4. Therefore, Sasquatch is also probably a recently extinct human relative and we just haven't found the fossils yet.

 

[kitakaze]

Though disputed as a misinterpretation of the data by the original discovery team, the most recent hypothesis concerning Homo floresiensis is that they were endemic cretins. A condition caused by iodine deficiency in the womb and in other words modern humans. Interestingly, supporters of this hypothesis cite oral traditions concerning ebu gogo as being consistent with that hypothesis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/05/scihobbit105.xml

As always, keep in mind that 'most recent' does not equate 'most correct'.

 

[kitakaze]

Just guessing here, but does the discovery of Homo floresiensis have anything to do with this? I suspect the reasoning goes like this:

1. There are legends in Indonesia of a tiny, hair-covered humanoid creature called ebu gogo.

2. In 2003, anthropologists discover the skeletal remains of a three foot tall, ape-faced creature that seems to be a dwarfed version of Homo erectus on the Indonesian island of Flores. It is thought to have survived until as recently as 12,000 years ago and to have existed alongside modern humans.

3. It is possible H. floresiensis survived for longer than that and inspired the native legend of ebu gogo.

So far, so good. There's no solid physical evidence but it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. But then we get . . .

3. Sasquatch is also a legendary hairy humanoid creature that no one seems to be able to find evidence of.

4. Therefore, Sasquatch is also probably a recently extinct human relative and we just haven't found the fossils yet.

There's nothing wrong with any of that conjecture until you get to the end there with sasquatch.

1. The modern concept of bigfoot/sasquatch is an invention of modern North American culture. Claims regarding native myths and traditions and bigfoot involve various mythical beings as widely ranging as elsewhere in the world.

2. We absolutely can not rule out that various world traditions regarding big hairy monster men are the remnants of ancient interactions between our ancestors and other hominid species. That fact does not lend credence to the claim of 8ft hairy bipedal primates currently existing across the North American continent evading classification all this time. If such a creature did exist yet recently went extinct is is not only fossils that we should finding as evidence of its existence.

 

[Gevaudan]

There's nothing wrong with any of that conjecture until you get to the end there with sasquatch.

1. The modern concept of bigfoot/sasquatch is an invention of modern North American culture. Claims regarding native myths and traditions and bigfoot involve various mythical beings as widely ranging as elsewhere in the world.
2. We absolutely can not rule out that various world traditions regarding big hairy monster men are the remnants of ancient interactions between our ancestors and other hominid species.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Dzo-no-qua and other hairy humanoids in amerind legend don't count? Or that bigfoots are all over the world? As far as I could tell, crow was only talking specifically about the North American version.

That fact does not lend credence to the claim of 8ft hairy bipedal primates currently existing across the North American continent evading classification all this time. If such a creature did exist yet recently went extinct is is not only fossils that we should finding as evidence of its existence.

I'm not saying it does lend credence to it. I was just wondering if the discovery H. floresiensis was what prompted crow to speculate that bigfoots were also recently extinct, that's why no fresh bodies, scat, living animals, etc., haven't been found, since a lot of cryptozoo enthusiasts wet their pants with joy because it seemed to 'prove' ebu gogo existed.

 

[Gevaudan]

Though disputed as a misinterpretation of the data by the original discovery team, the most recent hypothesis concerning Homo floresiensis is that they were endemic cretins. A condition caused by iodine deficiency in the womb and in other words modern humans. Interestingly, supporters of this hypothesis cite oral traditions concerning ebu gogo as being consistent with that hypothesis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/05/scihobbit105.xml

As always, keep in mind that 'most recent' does not equate 'most correct'.

I've read that one, and I'm a bit suspicious about it. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of blowhardism and jackassery endemic in the scientists actively studying the remains. Without being able to get my grubby mitts on a good replica of the bones, I can't stand 100% behind my opinion. Ah well. My thought on the matter is, since the bones are subfossils and the nearly complete skeleton is of a mature female, wouldn't there be a way to figure out if she'd borne children? If I remember correctly, women with iodine deficiency usually don't menstruate. I know giving birth 'notches' the pelvis, and I'm pretty certain menstruation and childbirth leave marks on the bones in other ways - are there any docs here that know more about this? I'm curious now.

Anyways, whether H. floresiensis turns out to be an actual new species or a diseased human, my question still stands - was its discovery what prompted crow to come up with her extinct bigfoot idea?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The "all those old sightings can't all be hoaxes/misidentifications/hallucinations and they're not around today, so they must be extinct" argument has already been used in cryptozoology in regard to the Tatzelwurm. I should note that, due to Cryptomundo's infamous censorship policies, I had to greatly tone down my skeptical commentary in order to guarantee that my comment would get posted (but I did manage to sneak in a reference to the fallacy of that line of thinking in a post in another entry reguarding Bigfoot).

 

[William Parcher]

1. There are legends in Indonesia of a tiny, hair-covered humanoid creature called ebu gogo.

3. It is possible H. floresiensis survived for longer than that and inspired the native legend of ebu gogo.

Weird little dudes.

One of the village elders told us that the Ebu Gogo ate everything raw, including vegetables, fruits, meat and, if they got the chance, even human meat.

When food was served to them they also ate the plates, made of pumpkin - the original guests from hell (or heaven, if you don't like washing up and don't mind replacing your dinner set every week).

The villagers say that the Ebu Gogo raided their crops, which they tolerated, but decided to chase them away when the Ebu Gogo stole - and ate - one of their babies.

The women Ebu Gogo had extremely pendulous breasts, so long that they would throw them over their shoulders, which must have been quite a sight in full flight.

Why do so many legends of "wild humanoids" include eating people and stealing babies?

 

[Gevaudan]

Why do so many legends of "wild humanoids" include eating people and stealing babies?

If you beleive sasquatch is basically an unusually tall, hairy hippie than it's because humans always attribute such evil behavior to marginalized outgroups (like Christians who believe Jews like to drink the blood of children). Or if you beleive these critters are similar to chimps, well, chimps are known to eat the young of monkeys, humans, and each other. Probably can just chalk this up to everyone in every culture liking to tell scary stories around a campfire

 

[EHocking]

Are you saying that there is a lost Audubon sketch of Sasquatch? And that Bigfooters have conspired to 'misplace' it in order to prove the 'extinctionists' are wrong?

No. I merely followed up a post to establish how extensive Audobon's species list was.

The point was that Footers argue, that Audubon's species list "is held" as the most comprehensive. Since he missed some species, therefore he missed BF.

Or are you saying that, if there was a Sasquatch then Audubon would have painted it? Therefore since he didn't paint it, there is no Sasquatch?

See above. The discussion was that rather than Footers saying that since he missed a few species, he could have missed BF, they argue, BF must have existed because others he did not paint also exist.

of course it that is the case, then the Dall Sheep never existed either.

 

[William Parcher]

No. I merely followed up a post to establish how extensive Audobon's species list was.

The point was that Footers argue, that Audubon's species list "is held" as the most comprehensive. Since he missed some species, therefore he missed BF.
See above. The discussion was that rather than Footers saying that since he missed a few species, he could have missed BF, they argue, BF must have existed because others he did not paint also exist.

I'm not aware of any Bigfooters making specific comments about Audubon. I may have confused the issue when I said this...

The devoted Bigfooter is forced to disagree and say that he simply didn't bag and illustrate a Bigfoot. That leads to questions about why the Native Americans and European settlers did not, or were not, able to convince him that a wild hairy bipedal ape was a genuine member of the biodiversity.

That could sound as if Bigfooters have actually said that. What I meant was if the question is posed to them the response would look like that. They cannot say that he did not illustrate Bigfoot because it didn't exist. The only rational response (for a Bigfooter) is that he was unable, unwilling or uninterested in procuring or attempting to procure a Bigfoot for his work. But there is even a possible "wild card" response. Audubon was working with mammalian quadrupeds. Putting aside humans (and a hypothetical Bigfoot) which are bipedal mammals, all the native mammals are quadrupedal. That could be the reason why he skipped all the pinnipeds. So a Bigfooter might say that BF was never on his "radar" (whether it exists or not) because it is a biped.