Evening all,

I was wondering if you'd ever heard a really good argument against the existence of Sasquatch? I've only heard one that really made me doubt it and still has me about 95/5 on the side of existence.

In 1994, I was taking one of my first courses on Native American Cultures. The specific class concerned tribes of the North East US and Canada. My professor was very genial and encouraged class discussion as long as it was related to the topic. While discussing religous beliefs of some of these cultures, we hit upon Wendigo/Witiko. Being interested in Sasquatch and knowing that the correlation had been made between these mythical/religous figures and Sas by several authors, I steered the discussion in that direction. I'd say about 9 out of the 12 of us in that course felt that the evidence was there that Sasquatch existed.

My professor, of course, did not fall in the majority. I expected to get one of the same tired arguments. What I got was a well-thought-out response that still gets me thinking. The professor stated that he felt that Sasquatch was ecologically unsound because another large animal already inhabited the niche - namely Grizzly and Brown bear. Large bear species are very similar to the purported size of Sasquatch and would eat almost an identical diet, i.e. an omnivorous diet. Is it likely that two large mammalian species inhabiting the same ecological niche would evolve in the same ecosystem? I didn't really have a good answer because I'd never thought of it that way before. Nothing like a good teacher! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

I still chew on that one from time to time. The only example that I can think of where 2 or more large mammals evolved in the same area that fill a carnivorous or omnivorous niche is the African Savannah. Lions, cheetahs, jaguars, and hyenas do have carnivorous diets and evolved in the same geographical location, but they take different types of prey - so no iron-clad rebuttal there. I did score some points back when I asked, "Ok then. What is making the tracks, and what are people seeing?". He mumbled something about "mass hysteria" and moved the class on to the next topic.

I'd be interested to hear any good skeptical arguments that you've heard.

Regards,
unixguy

"They don't exist."

DR





Unixguy:

I'm not throwing you under the bus. But, that about sums it up from the skeptics.

DR

DR,

I can appreciate the succinctness. However, I asked for logical arguments - not opinions. "They don't exist." is clearly an opinion, just as "They do exist." is an opinion.

Not throwing you under the bus either, just asking a question out of my own interest. I debate this topic probably once a week with a collegue. So far, I'd call it a stalemate. He's tried most of the old saws ( Where's a body? Where's the bones? We'd have found one by now. ) My personal fave was that satellites cover the entire globe, and we'd have seen one on the photos. I let him run with it for about 10 minutes. My response was, "Holy sh*t! I didn't know that. We've got satellites that can see through trees, and we've got an entire army of guys that do nothing but scan photos of the Cascades for bigfoot. Screw bigfoot then, we should put those guys on Osama. I bet we've got satellites that can see through rocks too."

Regards,
unixguy

The thing that always bothered me was the diet argument, how could such a massive animal survive on twigs and berries? Another skeptic pointed out that it is very difficult for bipedals to catch other four legged animals,not nimble enough. And the cold weather/snow/barefoot thing, howcome no frost bite hypothermia(sp?) their fur by most accounts is not that heavy. I know all of these have valid arguements from both sides, as much as I belive it has to exist in the back of my mind I sometimes feel it is almost impossible.

Look at it this way, if you choose. When modern humans began to speak, one of the first advantages of that was for young children to learn from their parents without skepticism. If the parent said "Stay away from that cliff" the kid turns around and doesn't start theorizing on gravity and whether they can survive the fall. They just back away from the cliff. It's much faster. The basic human mind is ready, willing, and able from birth to believe adults, and it carries on to adulthood.

Before the information age, learning was by word of mouth, and we are programmed to believe what we hear. So all kinds of beliefs spread this way like a virus.

It goes on today. Just google 'conspiracy' and you'll find all sorts of people believing all sorts of things because others have said those things, without any proof.

Skepticism simply recognizes the fact that humans are gullible and tries to find ways to sort the wheat from the chaffe. Skepticism simply raises the bar on when to consider something true or false, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

So in answer to your question, the burden of proof is on the believers, the skeptics don't have to prove the claim that it doesn't exist. The proof in all of these scientific mysteries eventually has the skeptics converted with overwhelming proof. The number of claims that can be made is really infinite, but all of them can't be right.

Indeed! I've got to be honest with you:

That's about the best, logical, reasonable, and reasoned skeptical argument I've heard to date.

Here's my answer:

I believe the relationship between sasquatches and brown bears is tenuous at best; similar to the relationship between black bears and brown bears.

Brown bears kill black bears on sight, yet they share lots of range. That means that their densities reflect their hold on that environment. In areas where brownies have been eradicated or thinned by human competition, black bears thrive better. The islands of Southeast and Gulf areas of Alaska are another example; the islands that hold brown bears have no black bears, and vice versa.

It may not be a stretch to consider the possibility that the eradication of brown bears in California, Oregon, and Washington may have even been a boon to the sasquatch population of those states (if the human population, which eradicated the brownies had a lesser effect on sasquatches, which I believe is likely).

In short, I believe both brown bear and sasquatch numbers have always been fairly low (when compared to black bears), which keeps density and competition low and balanced.

Actually FanofSquatch, there's pretty good answers to 2 of these. The third I'd have to research.

On the subject of diet, these animals would have to be omnivorous to support their mass. In other words, eat anything and everything, much like bears.

On the issue of hypothermia, there are several examples of humans surviving at what I would call low temperatures, i.e. 0-20 range. Feral children seem to do this. The specific example that I can recall is here. (On a side note, most of those kids on that website never recovered from the neglect they experienced. As a Dad, I get choked up reading about it, so don't take a look at it unless you are prepared.)

There are also reports that the feet seem to be heavily padded. I believe Albert Ostman's account refers to this specifically.

The one I don't have a ready answer for would be the biped vs quadraped. Is it possible that Sasquatch are opportunistic? Again, eat everything and anything so they don't necessarily need to be faster? Perhaps carrion scavenging could account for the odor sometime associated with sightings? I don't know, but I'll definitely look into it.

Thanks for the input.

Regards,
unixguy

I believe they're omnivorous, thus not pure hunters like the canids. There's also the possibility of winter dormancy.

Consider moose. They eat twigs (unleafed) all winter long (no hibernation), and a winter here in Alaska can last 8 months, and even longer. And they're huge; 6' tall at the top of the shoulder, and weigh from 800 to 1600 lbs.

If they can do it, why can't a sasquatch?



Believe me, I marvel at that all the time.

But consider the canids (wolves, coyotes, foxes) and weasels (mink, wolverine, marten, etc). Unlike moose, caribou, sheep, and goats with hooves, their feet/toes are just as vulnerable as a sasquatches to exposure, yet we know that the canids and weasels are out and about all winter long, even up to the shores of the Arctic Ocean.

I don't know how they do it, but they do.

Hi all,
Unixguy, the biological response to your professor's question is interesting but not valid from my thinking:
1. -as sea levels lowered, it would easier for Sas ancestors to cross over from Asia than to have 'evolved' here within North American ecosystems, thus his argument wouldn't apply.
2. Hominids move quite a bit, as new evidence is showing from Africa--for example, the birthplace of our species is now thought to have been in southern Africa and not east-central Africa as was thought previously. We have always migrated into new ecosystems without regard to competitors.

I'm sure there are other arguments--thanks for this interesting conversation!
vlandrum

Hi Unixguy:

Truly, I understand where you are coming from.

"They don't exist" is an opinion held to be fact by the skeptics though. That opinion to them is made verifiable simply by what has been experienced in the lab and in the study of zoology that places all known living organisms in a specially printed yellow paperback which matches the species. It is not an opinion to them.

Now I will throw you under the bus, forgive me, by stating that to "those who have seen", your question is irrelevant. I am not one of those "who have seen", but I still hold a person to their word sometimes. And to hold someone to that is something that disbelieving skeptics will never do. That's okay when you hear the corporate and governmental propaganda spouted daily.

But, "they don't exist" is an opinion of skeptics which unfortunately manifests as a scientific fact in most academic circles.

Respectfully,

DR

Sort of like "Bear Gang Fights". Thanks for the information, Hunster.

My experiences with bears in the wild is limited to chance encounters with 3 blacks when I lived in MT. I never saw a grizz. Actually, I'm pretty unsettled by the blacks. They have a reputation for being unpredictable.

In fact, my encounters mostly consisted of the following:

1. unixguy sees bear about 50 yds away on abandoned mining road.
2. unixguy exclaims "Oh crap!"
3. unixguy begins shouting "GO AWAY, BEAR!", because this is what people have told him to do.
4. Bear looks at unixguy and thinks to himself, "What a big dummy. I was just walking here. I wasn't doing anything else. Geez!"
5. Bear walks off road into woods
6. unixguy walks swiftly back to camp, changes pants and has a beer

Regards,
unixguy

Our experiences aren't much different. My bear encounters usually consist of the following:

1. The Huntster sees bear about 50 yds away on abandoned mining road.
2. After waking up from his daydreaming stroll, the Huntster exclaims "There he is!"
3. The Huntster makes lots of noise trying to unsling his rifle, charge the chamber, flip the scope covers, and shoulder the rifle, because this is what people have told him to do.
4. Bear looks at The Huntster and thinks to himself, "What an aggressive jerk. I was just walking here. I wasn't doing anything else. Geez!"
5. Bear walks off road into woods
6. The Huntster sadly stumbles back to camp, settles into the camp chair, and has a beer

Have mercy, could I join you for one?

DR

(sigh)

Sure.

My plans originally consisted of an exploratory push into the upper Chickaloon River in early May, but the Board of Game has changed all that as of yesterday.

One of the regulatory proposals I've been sending in to them for the past three years passed! This means I need to change my plans:

It's going to be a grizz hunt in the Mertie Mountains this spring!

Look for the campfire in Mosquito Flats. Stop in for a frosty one.

Watch out for the bears..........

The best skeptical argument? Easy, the one I have with no other person but myself regarding the waste of time/cost versus the benefits of being involved in this for a long amount of time. No skeptic will ever present an argument better than the one you can make to yourself.

Yeah, but dig this: There is no way of knowing if an ecosystem is capable of supporting an animal the size of a sasquatch. Why? Because you can go out and measure available resources, but if bigfoot exist in that ecosystem, those resources would not be exactly measurable because some would have already been consumed. Yes, a blackberry bush has a known yield--more or less. But suppose that the caculation of that yield is off by even .01%. That's--in total--a hell of a lot of blackberries. And unless you have a substantial percentage of blackberry bushes--wild ones, mind you--under constant surveilence to assure that they aren't being consumed by bigfoot, then you have no way of knowing if yield calculations are in fact correct. Does that make sense? Further, factor in that bigfoot may uproot and consume some plants in their entireity--plants that would then be unmeasured/unmeasurable--and you could easily reckon all manner available resources that just haven't been considered. Same with animals. Do you really know how many raccoons live in an ecosytem, or just how many raccoons live in an ecosystem that have been fortunate enough to avoid being consumed by a bigfoot?



True story.

Many of the best arguments against bigfoot are found right here on this board, made by some of the people who argue most passionately for their existence. I myself have asked many unanswered questions.

Yes.
No.
Maybe.
Perhaps.
NEVER!
OK - but just his time.

Does that answer your questions? :laugh:

The biggest thing I hear down here is,, Why Ain't No Hunter Brought Em In YET if he's real????

Crew Chief

<<<<The professor stated that he felt that Sasquatch was ecologically unsound because another large animal already inhabited the niche - namely Grizzly and Brown bear. Large bear species are very similar to the purported size of Sasquatch and would eat almost an identical diet, i.e. an omnivorous diet. Is it likely that two large mammalian species inhabiting the same ecological niche would evolve in the same ecosystem? I didn't really have a good answer because I'd never thought of it that way before. Nothing like a good teacher! >>>>
-----------------

...So his argument is that "large" creatures or beings cannot inhabit the same ecological niche?

....why not? There are hundreds of medium size and small creatures inhabiting the same ecological niche that have identical diets or "like" diets as their counterparts......

Why does that apply only to the large? I don't understand the logic.

Hunster got it right, as usual. If sasquatches exist, I would assume that their diet would be similar to that of bears, and therefore, potentially place the species in competition. BUT, competition is only relevant where resources are limiting. If resources are abundant, two or more species that occupy similar niches can coexist. More likely, however, is the matter of scale: a sasquatch and a grizzly would probably not tolerate each other in a 1 square mile territory, but if that territory was on the order of 100s of square miles (not all that unusual for a grizz) they could probably avoid each other just fine. So you could find sasquatches and grizzlies in "British Columbia", but that doesn't mean you'd find them both using mile 7-9 of "Hunster Creek."

Of course, this whole discussion ignores sasquatch reports from the rest of the continent that lacks grizzlies . . .


I'm afraid I'm most skeptical due to an argument you'll find mundane: no incontrovertible physical evidence in the fossil record or from recent history. For me, this argument is made even stronger the more people report encounters over a wider area. I'd be more inclined to believe if the phenomenon was limited to some small, isolated area, but these %&^$# things are reported almost worldwide in a huge variety of habitats, some not even remotely "remote." I'm also really bothered by the best evidence proffered for the existence of sasquatch - none of which appears in legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientific literature.

I know I have read that BFs kill deer. The article said a lot of people don't realize that, and a lot of forest rangers chalk it up to big cats because the deer are always gutted. But nothing is ever eaten, it's just that the liver is always missing. That is because the liver is very rich in nutrients. And the deer are usually fawns that have at least one broken leg, and sometimes their backs are broken.

I've always assumed they have thick padded feet, I thought I read in a book once that that was what a lot of BF investigators/searchers thought.

Just my opinion, but I can't say I agree that your prof's theory is one of the better ones I've heard to be skeptical of the existance of the sasquatch. There are several reasons from a biological standpoint on why the sasquatch is likely a social construct as opposed to a reality. Those arguements are hard to ignore. This isn't one of 'em IMO.

As Hunster points out, black bears, Kodiaks and Grizzlies all shared some of the same ranges and occupied similar ecological niches. Yet all managed to coexist prior to humanities extripating some of those species from portions of their historical ranges. Case in point: all larger omnivores, all for the most part, peacefully coexisting, while occupying similar niches.

There is no doubt that those respective species do have an impact on each other's relative abundance via cross species competition. It certianly wasn't a factor that lead to the extinction/extirpation of any of those species.

If you look at the supply of food as the limiting factor in population abundance for any large omnivore like the bear(or the proported Sasquatch), abundance usually hits it's threshold during periods when available and exploitable food sources are at seasonal or cyclic lows. Since the aforementioned bears all mitigate periods of diminished food supply by hibernation to help increase their abundance, they by and large would be taken out of the competitive picture when the sasquatch is argueably having the toughest time in maintaining a foothold on it's existance.

To say that the various species of bears would limit sasquatch abundance via competiton is one thing. To suggest that it could lead to extirpation doesn't really have a sound biological foundation IMO.

The dynamic of the sasquatch population would have to develop a fairly diverse array of survival strategies that are successful during the winter months to exploit a lion's share of dimished food sources in the PNW to maintain population abundance. The debate on if it is or is not feasible for the sasquatch to do this sucessfully to maintain a minimal abundance is IMO is a much better reason to be skeptical of the sasquatch as a reality.

I totally agree with your assessment and don't think it's mundane at all. I think most wildlife biologists would find the sasquatch more easy to except if the reports were indeed indicative of being limited to a small relic population confined to a smaller general area(say the PNW) as opposed to a coast to coast phenomenon. In that respect the sasquatch fits in no known "biological box" since all known wideranging species are generally speaking, fairly abundant. Every biologist I've ever spoken(that's actually given Bigfoot much thought) with has voiced a similar message.

I may have had the right idea, but you sure articulated it better.



Yes, it does. It actually brings problems into the debate:

The highest sasquatch reporting densities are in former brown bear range (PNW). When Lewis and Clark headed west in 1804, they knew of grizzlies only from aboriginal legends. (Didn't believe much of them, either, especially the part about how aggressive and hard to kill they were. Lewis' journal entries demonstrated that they sure found out otherwise; he actually got shot in the ass by a companion during a brown bear attack!)

So if brown bears have been absent from the eastern US forever (or at least longer than the west), why are sasquatches numbers denser in the PNW than, say, Florida?



I'm less troubled by this. I believe the numbers of sasquatches to be (and always have been )so low (even in prime habitat) that the discovery of fossils is a very remote possibility.

One point I read somewhere regarding non-competition is that bears aren't active at night, whereas Bigfeet are. That would keep them out of each other's hair. Another is that Bigfeet apparently consume leaves (according to Roe's sighting, and others), which bears don't. (Do they?)

One poster here speculated a year or two ago that, although bipedal, Bigfeet might be able to catch deer by dropping on them from ambush in a tree. (No sighting reports of them in trees, though.) Or one BF could drive deer in the direction of another. (Few reports could be interpreted that way, though.) Another, which has just occurred to me, is that if a BF could drive a deer into an area of heavy underbrush, he might be able to chase it down there, because he has the ability to crash through such brush, which a deer doesn't. (Few (no?) reports of such driving though.) Or maybe a BF just has greater speed when running than we realize. (Several reports indicate high speeds.)

Just for the heck of it, I went looking for an Alaskan Bear Range map at ADFG and found this. As usual, when doing such research, I learned something I wasn't even thinking about when doing the research.

This map shows that there is even a small area (the head of Kotzebue Sound) where black, brown, and polar bears share range (although the polar bears may be in the area when the blacks and browns are denning).

I didn't know that before today.

But up until recently, neither were chimpanzees. And if you show me scientific literature that will touch sasquatch without the use of a 10 foot pole or making fun of the subject, I will eat my hat. :new_weirdsmiley:

The point made by Saskeptic, has been for me, the most logical reason for sas not to exist. I remember when I first read his thoughts on another post some time ago. It just really rocked my belief in the potential existance of said creatures.

The evidence for Bigfoot is like Internet porn; although there is a great deal of it most of it is no good.

[quote name='RogerKni' date='Feb 1 2006, 10:02 AM' post='294141']
One point I read somewhere regarding non-competition is that bears aren't active at night, whereas Bigfeet are. That would keep them out of each other's hair. Another is that Bigfeet apparently consume leaves (according to Roe's sighting, and others), which bears don't. (Do they?)

Bears are active in the day or night. Depends on what is happening (temperature, weather, food supply) and what the habits are of those particular bears in that particular area.
Human avoidance used to account for a lot of bears' nocturnal habits. (but that is changing with poorly designed laws in BC). One could possibly theorize bears diurnal behaviour is sasquatch related based on that example.
Bears consume leaves when they are green and succulent.

[quote name='tube' post='294210' date='Feb 1 2006, 02:20 PM']
The evidence for Bigfoot is like Internet porn; although there is a great deal of it most of it is no good.
[/quote]

Didn't accept your credit card for membership again? :wink: :laugh:

That's not true.

Bears are active during the day.

They are also active at night.

Bears are a northern hemispheric species.

So are sasquatches.

The northern hemisphere recieves more sunlight than the southern hemisphere.

Just because it's "nite" to you doesn't mean it's night to them (bears or sasquatches).

Count the number of bears you've personally seen in real life, in the wild.

Divide by 500.

You're getting close to the number of sasquatches out there.

Well done, all. This is the kind of debate that I'd hope to encounter on this forum. You've all got really well thought-out and researched points! I hope you don't mind if I respond to a few.

Sierra,

I think his logic was that large animals consume more resources by nature of their mass. Keep in mind, I'm no biologist, so I could be snowed by that, but it made sense to me and still does. For example, I would expect that an elk consumes more graze than a deer.

On a side note, I later found out that this particular prof held a double PHD in biology and anthropology. He did some very interesting work on human sexual perception with the Papua New Guinea. I'll tell you the story sometime.

Saskeptic,

As far as human fossil records in North America, that is a subject that I can approach with a solid background. If we use homo sapiens as a guide, our fossil record on this continent (North America) is really non-existent. We've no fossils of the genus homo that I know of - burials, yes - but no fossils.

Despite what the Discovery channel tells you, fossils are difficult to locate, except in large bone beds. We find these in areas where naturally occurring phenomena kill a large number of animals concurrently. A good example is the LaBrea tar pits - or the inland sea that was once most of the southwest. I could walk around the arroyos in west Texas as a boy and find many fossil "sea shells". I still have some of them.

Ask any biological or cultural anthropoligist that specializes in Plains culture how hard it is to find a fire pit ( much less a burial or structure ), and I think you'll get my drift.

JimF.

Cost/benefit analyis sucks. It doesn't take in the intangibles - friendship, accomplishment, pride in a job well done. As they said when I was a kid, "Keep on Truckin'".

Regards,
unixguy

[Edited to correct spelling and add additional comments]

That's all true.

However, North America has ample habitat for many more "big game" animals.

The factor which has kept large mammal numbers down is:

Man:

Both as a predator, and as a consumer of habitat.

[quote name='RogerKni' date='Feb 1 2006, 10:02 AM' post='294141']
One point I read somewhere regarding non-competition is that bears aren't active at night, whereas Bigfeet are. That would keep them out of each other's hair. Another is that Bigfeet apparently consume leaves (according to Roe's sighting, and others), which bears don't. (Do they?)

Both points are a total fallacy.
Most killings by grizzly bears..happen at night when people are sleeping..these are bears which have habituated with humans.

Bears consume all manner of plants..and portions there of..which contain high amounts of protein! Hence finding grizzles mostly in alpine meadows during the summer months.

I think one of the the best skeptical arguments I have heard, read, or thought of is the fact that the sightings are so widespread, yet there is still no good biological evidence. I have to admit that some sighting reports from places as far apart as Alaska, Florida, Manitoba, South Dakota, Texas, and California seem to have similar credibility and that is not even considering Yeti, Yowie, the Malaysian bigfoot, Almas, Orang Pendek, etc. Paraphrasing Ivan Sanderson, if you think I am a loon for believing in the possibility of one unproven species in the remote places in the Pacific Northwest, you must reall think I am wacked out if believe in the possibility that one could live in any or all of the above mentioned places. Surely there would be one Sasquatch (or sasquatch like animal) somewhere sometime that would go postal and thus reveal itself to us humans. That lack of biological evidence in such a widespread phenomena is very difficult to account for.

I think Saskeptics reply to the professor's theory was right on. I think the professors statement was an over generalization.

I don't have a big problem with the lack of fossil evidence. I don't think we can say that there is no fossil evidence. If it turns out that bigfoot is indeed descended from Gigantopithecus or Homo Erectus or other known hominoid, then obviously there is fossil evidence. As far as no fossil evidence here in the US, I don't know that it was ever abundant enough to make finding a fossil likely. Also, I am not confident that if they found fossil evidence, it would get properly identified. For example, the leading paleontologist from Indonesia insisted that Floresiensis was a malformed human.

If grizzly bears and moose grow huge, I can't see why a bigfoot couldn't also grow large.

Well, before rifles made daytime activity dangerous for bears, wasn't that mostly when they were active--i.e., their preferred mode? If so, that would have allowed the two animals to share a niche for most of their evolutionary history without coming into frequent conflict.

Even in the likely event that I'm wrong (well, the source I read it from is wrong), BF & bears could have learned to avoid each other even if they encountered each other fairly often, because they would be so evenly matched that whoever won a fight between them would be sure to be injured. And even "minor" injuries in the wild can eventually have fatal, or anyway nasty, consequences. Aren't there some evenly matched competitive species that practice mutual avoidance?

Lions, hyenas, hunting dogs and crocodiles are often evenly matched. Cheetahs, leopards, and humans do all feed on the same prey, with a few exceptions, as these animals and all can successfully compete by mutual avoidance. Even lions don't have it all their way. In America, wolves, mountain lions, wolverines, and black bears can be evenly matched and don't normally kill each other. There are probably many other examples in most ecosystems.

The late Timothy Treadwell demonstrated that grizzlies can be somewhat habituated to human presence. I think an elusive animal that didn't bother the grizzly might be tolerated most of the time. BF may have learned to avoid conflict especially since they aren't likely out to prove something by seeing how close they can get.

[quote name='Huntster' date='Feb 1 2006, 11:58 AM' post='294139']
I may have had the right idea, but you sure articulated it better.

You're just trying to butter me up so I name another creek after you.


The highest sasquatch reporting densities are in former brown bear range (PNW). . . .
So if brown bears have been absent from the eastern US forever (or at least longer than the west), why are sasquatches numbers denser in the PNW than, say, Florida?

I'm not sure the folks from Arkansas and East Texas would agree that sas density is higher in the PNW. Anyway, even if they do exist and are more dense in the PNW, it would only show that the presence of brown bear is basically irrelevant. Sas are big, powerful, mobile, and smart enough to avoid bears when they need to. I get the original post's ecological logic, but I really don't think it would be an issue. Competition with bears is certainly not what keeps me from believing.

Saskeptic,

As far as human fossil records in North America, that is a subject that I can approach with a solid background. If we use homo sapiens as a guide, our fossil record on this continent (North America) is really non-existent. We've no fossils of the genus homo that I know of - burials, yes - but no fossils.

Despite what the Discovery channel tells you, fossils are difficult to locate, except in large bone beds. We find these in areas where naturally occurring phenomena kill a large number of animals concurrently. A good example is the LaBrea tar pits - or the inland sea that was once most of the southwest. I could walk around the arroyos in west Texas as a boy and find many fossil "sea shells". I still have some of them.



Hey unixguy - great avatar, BTW.

I get hammered every now and then for my mention of fossils. I'm down with how unlikely it is for a fossil to be formed and be found, especially for primates. The lack of fossil evidence for sasquatch is not a nail in the coffin for me, it's just one more piece of the puzzle that's frustratingly missing. I'll elaborate.

Let's say sasquatch is Gigantopithecus in the New World. We actually have hundreds of teeth and a few jaw fragments from this animal, all found in Asia. We have no such material from North America. I daresay too that sas tends to frequent riparian areas (e.g., Bluff Creek, Willow Creek, Boggy Creek, Hunster Creek), and these are habitats that would be much more likely to create and reveal fossils than, say, tropical forests. So it's not all that unreasonable for me to suggest that a creature that ranges continent-wide, and has been here since - middle Pleistocene? - should have some kind of fossil record.

Open and shut? No, but find me one Giganto molar from British Columbia and you'll see my belief capacity instantly shoot from 0% to a solid 50% . . .

Same idea applies if we assume sasquatch to be some kind of Homo erectus-type offshoot. We indeed have a fossil record for H. erectus in other parts of the world, but not here. I understand how truly rare it is to unearth such fossils. At the same time, we don't have them, and it certainly doesn't _add_ to my ability to accept their existence to have no fossil precedent in the New World.

I haven't heard any good ones skeptical arguments, actually.

A primatologist dismissed the Toba Inlet story on grounds there wouldn't be enough to eat. He based this on what Orangutans eat.

The Wendigo stories are from the Algonquian, are they not?

I"n the mythology of the Algonquian-speaking tribes of Native Americans, the Wendigo is a malevolent supernatural creature. It is usually described as a giant with a heart of ice; sometimes it is thought to be entirely made of ice. Its body is skeletal and deformed, with missing lips and toes.

The first accounts of the Wendigo myth by explorers and missionaries date back to the 17th century. They describe it rather generically as a werewolf, devil, or cannibal.

The Wendigo was usually presumed to have once been human. Different origins of the Wendigo are described in variations of the myth. A hunter may become the Wendigo when encountering it in the forest at night, or when becoming possessed by its spirit in a dream. When the cannibalistic element of the myth is stressed, it is assumed that anyone who eats corpses in a famine becomes a Wendigo as a result. The only way to destroy a Wendigo is to melt its heart of ice. In recent times, it has been identified with sasquatch or bigfoot by cryptozoologists, but there is little evidence in the indigenous folklore for it being a similar creature.

Perhaps this myth was used as a deterrent and cautionary tale among northern tribes whose winters were long and bitter and whose hunting parties often were trapped in storms with no recourse but to consume members of their own party. It could be indicative of starvation that the Wendigo is said to consume moss and other unpalatable food when human flesh is unavailable. Its physical deformities are suggestive of starvation and frostbite, so the Wendigo may be a myth based on a personification of the hardships of winter and the taboo of cannibalism.

Actual Wendigo murder trials took place in Canada around the beginning of the 20th century. The anthropologist Morton Teicher has described the alleged clinical condition of believing oneself to be a Wendigo, which he calls Windigo Psychosis (note the spelling in this context: Windigo, rather than Wendigo).

The most comprehensive resource on the Wendigo is John Robert Colombo's anthology. It contains stories and poems on the Wendigo, many inspired by Blackwood's."


What Brown Bears and Grizzlies are found east of the Mississippi?

The largest population of Sasquatches appears to be in the PNW, especially on the west slope of the Cascades. That's Black Bear country. They're not nearly as aggressive as Grizzlies. Seems Sasquatches eat what they eat; they're omnivores. There are plenty of grubs, frogs, Carpenter Ants, grasshoppers in season, and an endless supply of Club Moss, which is reported to be quite nourishing. Glenn Thomas reported seeing a family eating hibernating rodents and two females eating willow leaves. There are reports that indicate they eat fish. Byrne said he never had trouble satisifying the inner man on his treks and a friend of mine used to go cross country skiing in Washington State "siwash", i.e., living off the land. Same location doesn't necessarily indicate same niche. Speciation of Cichids in Lake Tanganyika is another example; same lake, different niches within the lake.

It's been suggested the nocturnal behavior noted in the US may have evolved to avoid direct competition with bears, which are diurnal. Steenburg didn't find nocturnal behavior to be the case from his reports in Canada. Western Canada's human population is minimal by comparison to the lower 48. Sasquatches would have much more room to roam without fear of running into another competitor.......man.

The only primate fossil tooth found in NA that I know of was found at John Day. It's 20-22 million years old. Are there more?

Despite decades of excavations in Africa, only three Chimpanzee teeth have been found, and they were in an unexperted location. To my knowlege, no Gorilla fossils have been found so far.

There seems to be a scarcity of fossils for any forest-dwellers in NA. Acid soils are not good for preservation.
One (at least) of the Giganto jaws was found in a cave, wasn't it? There are few limestone caves in the PNW.

:censored:

In the PNW, wolves and coyotes, cougars and other cougars, Golden Eagles and Bald Eagles........well, maybe they don't count since the eagles utilize different food resources. Bald Eagles rob Ospreys, which compete for the fish..........still thinking.


I was intrigued by the idea avoidance of humans could be a carry over from Giganto's association with Homo erectus, which may have hunted them.

Actually there's LOTS of primate fossils in North America, but all of them are Paleocene or Eocene (63-50 million years old). Nothing past the Eocene. Some suid (pig) teeth very similar to primate molars have been reported from 20-30 million year old deposits, but the misidentification was realized and corrected.
NO primates have been conclusively shown to live in North America for the past 50 million years (except us and possibly BF :wink: ).
Awhile back, someone was arguing that Howler Monkeys which occur in southern Mexico are an exception. But since southern Mexico is Central America, not North America, the point is moot.
My cent and a half...

What an excellent post, LAL! I agree with full heart! Thank you!




Agreed, but with post script:

I can’t imagine starving along the Pacific Northwest coast. The place is a wonderland of life. The seafood opportunities abound , beyond even my own imagination. The vegetation is as thick as anywhere on Earth. Water, the foundation of life, is everywhere; you can’t escape it. It is underfoot, it comes from the sky regularly, and it covers the vegetation. Life in the PNW is wetness (as opposed to "moist").



I consider nocturnal/diurnal behavior of creatures of the North still a mystery.

For most of you, it is difficult to imagine the cycles of the sun here in Southcentral Alaska. Our swings of daylight hours is even a focus of modern psychological medicine regarding mood swings. Here in the Anchorage area, we go from 4 hrs. of light per day at winter solstice to 22 hours of light at summer solstice.

What’s a nocturnal/diurnal species to do?

Bears sleep through the winter darkness. Our squirrels, unlike chipmunks in the Lower 48, are active all winter.

Everything else stays awake, and fights for survival.

(I've even read of a researcher studying moose rut timing worldwide. It was amazing (I wish I could cite it; I'll look for it again). This researcher found that moose rut occured within a 5 day period (averaging Sept. 25) whether it was on the North Slope of the Brooks Range in Alaska, the mountains in Wyoming, the forests of Ontario or Maine, the taiga of Siberia, or the taiga of Finland.

That indicates that it ain't temperature, sunlight, altitude, latitude, continent, (?).)

Granted, this isn’t prime sasquatch territory. There are few reports from here. But we have species which are common in lower latitudes, specifically:

• Bears (black and brown)
• Moose
• Canids (wolves, coyotes {recently, actually}, and fox)
• Lynx
• Weasels
• Beaver

I’ve found moose in the winter tend to lay during the day because that’s when it’s warmest (whether winter or summer), and they get active with eating (generating body heat by both moving and digesting) during the coolest hours.

Predators and furbearers appear to do the same. In order to have enough protection from the extreme cold of the winter, they must lay low during the hottest part of the day.

Humans are different in every way. We create our own light in the darkest days or hours. We provide our own insulation when the temps go down, and we are hairless enough to operate in extreme heat.

I believe sasquatches are like bears, in both food and active habits:

You do it when it’s time, and when/where the competition is lightest.

I have yet to hear ANY skeptic disprove the hypothesis that a 10' primate lives among us.

Well, beyond the oblivious professor who says an unknown primate "can't" exist in North America. I love that statement, so "scientific"....."can't"....that's a word for losers and professors who don't use the scientific method.




Booooooo!



Hissssssss!





Bah-humbug!




Yawn! :new_tiredsmiley:

One factor that over-weights the frequency of fossil finds in China is that folk medicine there employed ground-up bones and teeth, so villagers collected them for resale, so pharmacists bought them, and scientists could acquire them.

Saskeptic said. "We indeed have a fossil record for H. erectus in other parts of the world, but not here. "

I remember a couple of years ago there was supposedly an old man in Mexico who found what seemed to be a homo erectus skull cap. I haven't heard anything else about it though so maybe it was either a mistake or inconclusive. I have visited the Ancient Man Site (I think that is what it is called) near Barstow California where Loius Leaky thought he found evidence of tool making, presumably H. erectus or earlier. It wasn't very convincing to me though.

I remember a couple of years ago there was supposedly an old man in Mexico who found what seemed to be a homo erectus skull cap. I haven't heard anything else about it though so maybe it was either a mistake or inconclusive. I have visited the Ancient Man Site (I think that is what it is called) near Barstow California where Loius Leaky thought he found evidence of tool making, presumably H. erectus or earlier. It wasn't very convincing to me though.
[/quote]

I agree there're some potentially tantalizing objects out there, but to my knowledge, no definitive work that places H. erectus - or any hominid that predates H. sapiens - in the New World.

Thanks too DesertYeti for keeping me honest about the primate fossil timeline. I should have been more specific.

Chronic, the burden of proof - for those who even care about solving this mystery - rests with the believers who claim that a 10' primate lives among us, yet are unable to produce any incontrovertible physical evidence. If your hypothesis is that a large, hairy, primate roams the wilds of North America, then we would predict that it shares some qualities with every other terrestrial vertebrate on the planet:

it should be able to be shot, tracked, trapped, photographed, hit by a logging truck, etc.

I'm not saying it should be easy to produce this evidence, given the rarity and wariness of the alleged creature, but for how long do I need to wait? We're almost 40 years since Patterson's film catapulted "bigfoot" into the public eye. Will we go another 40 without a body, a scapula, a tooth, a clear and conclusive photograph? Or will we just pile on more eyewitness accounts, plaster feet, and butt-prints in that time, all the while with the believers poo-pooing the skeptics "closed minds?"

As much as ANY of you, I would love to learn that this wild creature - that shares so much with us - has managed to evade modern civilization due to its power, intelligence, and cunning. What a magnificent creature this sasquatch must be! But the problem with mythic qualities is that they usually end up just being "myth."

You disprove a hypothesis....you can never actually prove a hypothesis. That's why gravity is still considered a theory. The Professor's argument that "an unknown primate CAN'T exist in North America" does nothing to disprove my hypothesis in any way (though it does disprove the hypothesis that the professor is scientific minded). :laugh: