Devil's Advocate / Susquatch

from another thread:

Quote: Nareed

Consider, if there are populations of big apes in the forests of the Pacific northwest, some positive traces, at least, of their prescence would have been found by now.

I basically agree with you; I suspect you put the odds of such a creature existing at something astronomical to one, I would place it at greater than 10,000 to one. The main problem with accepting the "evidence", which evidently can be good enough to fool some experts, is that it is too hard to explain how a breeding population could be small enough to continue to avoid detection. BTW I have some schooling in Paleontology [short of a degree].

So, since I really agree with you, here are some arguments I've seen, playing devil's advocate:

*The creature, if it exists, can almost certainly be imagined to have been nearly wiped out by Man, displaced in a competition. Therefore, it's evolved into an expert evader of Man, explaining this mysterious inability of ours to find a specimen or better hard evidence.

*Discounting the huge body of evidence of sightings etc. puts a large number of credible witnesses into the category of liar / fool / etc.

*Some trained scientists are starting to accept the evidence, persevering in the face of severe criticism.

*The latest news largely ignored by the media is the majority belief now that these "Hobbits" fossils found in Indonesia were actually most closely related to Homo Erectus . The fact that they were dated to only 12,000 years ago had to rock that Scientific community. I'm sure the odds of discovering such recent Homo Erectus were put at about 10,000 to one by most Paleontologists, I believe they were thought to have disappeared several 100,000 years ago. So, maybe the odds arent that long ?

edited

I like the fact that in this board "don't bet on it" varries a lot of weight :)

Quote: odiousgambit

*The creature, if it exists, can almost certainly be imagined to have been nearly wiped out by Man, displaced in a competition. Therefore, it's evolved into an expert evader of Man, explaining this mysterious inability of ours to find a specimen or better hard evidence.

Good one. BUt:

1) I have a hard time believing animals, even clever animals like apes and monkeys, would be smart and forethoughtful enough to hide such things as dropings and even loose fur. They seem to have no trouble laying footprints all over the place.

2) By the time Man first arrived in the Americas, he was fluent in cave-painting and other arts. So the early humans in our fair continent would have recorded bigfoot if they found it necessary to wipe it out. Either it was dangerous or good eating.

Quote:

*Some trained scientists are starting to accept the evidence, persevering in the face of severe criticism.

Good for them. If they can find credible evidence, that would be great. Hopefully they'll bring cameras that can focus.

Quote: Nareed

I like the fact that in this board "don't bet on it" varries a lot of weight :)

....hide such things as dropings....

That's what I love about this forum.

Even a thread/post that talks about Big Foot poop has an element of gambling to it!

Quote: Nareed

I like the fact that in this board "don't bet on it" varries a lot of weight :)

Have to keep it on topic! [g]

Quote: Nareed

1) I have a hard time believing animals, even clever animals like apes and monkeys, would be smart and forethoughtful enough to hide such things as dropings and even loose fur. They seem to have no trouble laying footprints all over the place.

As Devil's Advocate, I have to point out that in the matter of fur and droppings, there are claims that such exist, notably one by Dr. Meldrum.

Quote: Nareed

2) By the time Man first arrived in the Americas, he was fluent in cave-painting and other arts. So the early humans in our fair continent would have recorded bigfoot if they found it necessary to wipe it out. Either it was dangerous or good eating.

Indeed some paintings are pointed to as evidence of this, and the American Indians, you know, did have some sort of belief in this, and the term Sasquatch comes from them.

Quote: Nareed

Good for them. If they can find credible evidence, that would be great. Hopefully they'll bring cameras that can focus.

There is one case of advocacy for a trail camera shot, some saying small bear, others attempt to make it into Bigfoot in a convincing manner to some. Even as Devil's Advocate, I have to groan on that one, but still, you might as well get used to the idea that all arguments are current amongst the believers, and they have an answer for each one.

Quote: odiousgambit

As Devil's Advocate, I have to point out that in the matter of fur and droppings, there are claims that such exist, notably one by Dr. Meldrum.

Both fur and droppings carry genetic and celular material from the originating animal. it should be easy to study these and determine where they come from, or whther they are from an unkown source.

Quote:

Indeed some paintings are pointed to as evidence of this, and the American Indians, you know, did have some sort of belief in this, and the term Sasquatch comes from them.

As a rule cave paintings depicted existent animals. IF that's the case, then a clear ape would stand out beyond question. As for belief, the Aztecs believed in Tlaloc, the rain god, and even made statues portraying him. That does not constitute evidence for the rain god's existence.

Quote: Nareed

Both fur and droppings carry genetic and celular material from the originating animal. it should be easy to study these and determine where they come from, or whther they are from an unkown source.

Surely Meldrum is aware of that, but I don't know what he would have to say about attempts to gleen this. Maybe I should order his book, but if my wife found out I did, she would show no mercy in ribbing me. She has a birthday coming up, so now that I think about it, I should be able to tell her I can't talk about packages in the mail. Hmmmm.

Quote: Nareed

As a rule cave paintings depicted existent animals. IF that's the case, then a clear ape would stand out beyond question.

I believe the problem is that there becomes an argument about whether what's depicted is an idealized man, a legendary manlike creature like Sasquatch, or an astronaut from outer space! From what I can see, no apes maybe, although apes are on totem poles and masks, which alternatively become an argument for Sasquatch depictions. For cave drawings, one defense has to be similar to the defense against sometimes lack of fossil evidence to support Paleontology theory in general, as the fossil record can't be expected to be anything but somewhat spotty. Same for cave drawings?

Quote: Nareed

As for belief, the Aztecs believed in Tlaloc, the rain god, and even made statues portraying him. That does not constitute evidence for the rain god's existence.

Belief systems are outside the domain of this Devil's Advocate.[g]

Quote: odiousgambit

Surely Meldrum is aware of that, but I don't know what he would have to say about attempts to gleen this. Maybe I should order his book, but if my wife found out I did, she would show no mercy in ribbing me. She has a birthday coming up, so now that I think about it, I should be able to tell her I can't talk about packages in the mail. Hmmmm.

I would show no mercy, either. Of course the ignore funtion is coming, and even without it you don't have to put up with me all day :P

Now, as to the likely "evidence," any scientist would agree to investigate it to exhaustion. Anything less is chosing ignorance over knowledge.

Quote:

I believe the problem is that there becomes an argument about whether what's depicted is an idealized man, a legendary manlike creature like Sasquatch, or an astronaut from outer space!

There's such a thing as context. What do cave drawings of that period depict?

Quote:

For cave drawings, one defense has to be similar to the defense against sometimes lack of fossil evidence to support Paleontology theory in general, as the fossil record can't be expected to be anything but somewhat spotty. Same for cave drawings?

Not the same, but there's something to that.

Fossils form in a random, haphazard manner. Animals have to die in the right palce, under the right circumstances (or their remains left there by predators or scavengers). Cave paintings, on the other hand, are done in places chosen for the purpose. I assume our ancestors chose places that mostly ensured a stable environment, at the time, for their paintings.

Key phrase is "at the time." Things change and a dry cave can get swamped by changing conditions, an underground spring bursting forth, etc

Quote: Nareed

...the ignore funtion is coming, and even without it you don't have to put up with me all day :P

no problem, I thought it was kind of fun, but I think I'm done unless somebody can come up with something.