• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some basic questions about Bigfoot

If Bigfoot were real, footers wouldn't have to make up excuses FOR EVERY SINGLE THING!!!

Every reasonable question posed that asks say "well, why aren't we seeing them, what do they eat? where are the bones...etc" all have to be covered by some elaborate, deeply defensive excuse.

Real animals don't need excuses, they get found, because they aren't as smart as we are, and they make mistakes. (and if you claim they ARE as smart as we are, please explain how they aren't the apex animal on the planet then? cuz human brains in a 8 foot ,500lb body, would be running the show)
 
Travis said:
Well the food issue was always what got me. Bears are omnivores and yet they often find themselves coming into contact with people in their search for food. The idea that we can drop down an 8 foot mammal into those same woods and have it somehow forage for food more effectively than even the bears just seemed unlikely.
Click to expand...

Simples, BF eats the bears and uses their skins for winter coats and tent covers.
 
MikeG said:
Help me out here........

How would we know whether we have bigfoot fossils or not? If these things are within the normal human height range, how would they necessarily differ from human fossils?

And to those who say there is no food for them............what do bears live off then?

Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,
I think you'll find that the human-size bigfoot is a recent invention to make the human DNA scam work.
Since 1967 people have said bigfoot is between 7' and 15' tall.
 
Seven foot is within normal human range. 15 feet is a figment of a fevered imagination (as might 7 feet be, of course). If they display normal primate sexual dimorphism, the females will be smaller, so, I say again, how could we tell the difference? Just saying.........

Mike
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Mike,
I think you'll find that the human-size bigfoot is a recent invention to make the human DNA scam work.
Since 1967 people have said bigfoot is between 7' and 15' tall.
Click to expand...

oops wrong quote, this is addressed to mikes excusing away no skeletons
Ok fine, so excuse away sagital crest, or lack thereof!
 
MikeG said:
How would we know whether we have bigfoot fossils or not?
Click to expand...

The same way we would know if we had Homo neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H. habilis, H. heidelbergensis, etc. fossils: comparative anatomy.

Also, as Correa Neto alluded, the bigfoot proponents are constantly trying to push the unique morphological characteristics of this creature. Great size is an obvious one, but "Patty" is supposed to have a heavy brow ridge, sagittal crest, arms and legs completely out of proportion for a modern human (just ask SweatyYeti), and, of course, Meldrum's "mid-tarsal break." That's a lot of morphological divergence!
 
Last edited:
OK.......devil's advocate now.....but could such fossils have been collected somewhere by little museums who don't have the expertise to examine them properly, and just be stuck away in a drawer somewhere labelled as "big native American"?

-

Now guys, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm advocating any of this stuff. I'm just asking........
 
MikeG said:
OK.......devil's advocate now.....but could such fossils have been collected somewhere by little museums who don't have the expertise to examine them properly, and just be stuck away in a drawer somewhere labelled as "big native American"?
Click to expand...

Most museums, even the small ones, are very aware of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and act accordingly.
 
MikeG said:
OK.......devil's advocate now.....but could such fossils have been collected somewhere by little museums who don't have the expertise to examine them properly, and just be stuck away in a drawer somewhere labelled as "big native American"?

-

Now guys, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm advocating any of this stuff. I'm just asking........
Click to expand...

Yet the native Americans apparently have none...
 
OK, clearly something I've never heard of.

Maybe BF has heard about that Act and worked out that burying its dead there would guarantee great protection ;)

Mike
 
MikeG said:
Help me out here........

How would we know whether we have bigfoot fossils or not? If these things are within the normal human height range, how would they necessarily differ from human fossils?

And to those who say there is no food for them............what do bears live off then?

Mike
Click to expand...
Within the normal human height range? Is that new? What will you say next, Mike? that if...if after all, they are not so hairy and can wear some kind of clothes, then there is a possiblity that they can walk the street undetected?
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Mike,
I think you'll find that the human-size bigfoot is a recent invention to make the human DNA scam work.
Since 1967 people have said bigfoot is between 7' and 15' tall.
Click to expand...

Patty's "inhuman" gait, different foot construction, inability to turn her head, sagittal crest, IM index,...etc.

Patty was not human.
 
Also, Mike, most museums will contact the archaeologist at either the state or federal level when such things are found - whether by someone going through old archives or someone bringing it in. There is a lot of stuff out there, but any archaeologist would recognize stuff that's out of the norm, like bones that aren't in their frame of reference, and get another opinion. This idea that there are tons of little museums all over that might have stuff in their old dusty basements is pretty much grasping at straws. Museums who want accreditation (good for grants) have to be pretty careful about following recognized museology practices. There are now so many legal ramifications involved about having old bones that most are pretty careful about it.

Of course, there is always the exception or two or three, and the footers will point to them...
 
Sonny2 said:
That thread is just so darn authoritative sounding! Man, makes me think they really have something. So hows come they can't find it on the TV show?

Cognitive dissonance...
Click to expand...

You would think they have several specimens and that they have been studying bigfoot in the wild for years...

They are definitely stuck with the idea that sasquatch is not human, though. So they will have to disagree with any DNA "testing" that shows otherwise.
 
Last edited:
So, that makes the BFRO and Meldrum up the non-human creek, versus Ketchum and her followers (a lot at BFF).

We're in for a world of BF infighting - watch the fur (or is it hair?) fly.
 
There is a lot of stuff out there, but any archaeologist would recognize stuff that's out of the norm, like bones that aren't in their frame of reference, and get another opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm a archaeologist and I can guarantee that I would recognize something like that.
Even if the cone head was somehow missing, the volume of the muscle-mass would be clearly visible at the bones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom